Top 10 (salary) and bottom 10 College degrees  - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 03:15:43 am
content: Well, since on and off we have discussion about college, degree, and career.Forbes' 2014-2015 Top and bottom 10 salarycollege degrees:EE ties with Aerospace Engineering degree as number 9 (top) at around $65K (Early Career). Other variation/sub-fields of EE/CE are up there.Top top is Petroleum Eng at over $102K USD., Electronics and Communication Eng as number 5 at $64K (Early Career). For it to be at spot 5 at $64K over EE's $65K at spot 9, Isupposeit grows better than EE into mid/late career.The bottom hovers around $30K-$35K USD (Early Career).Forbes:http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mkl45ehhmf/no-9-bachelors-degree-with-highest-salary-potential-tie-electrical-engineering-ee/

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 03:26:37 am
content: Its interesting that most of the top 10 are some form of engineering degree. A bachelor degree isn't worth a whole lot these days. I wonder what the top and bottom 10s would look like for master degrees?

author: AlxDroidDev
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 05:01:36 am
content: Yet more interesting is that 5 of the bottom 10 salaries have to do with child services or education. I wonder how that will impact the future of the kids and the society as a whole.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 05:15:19 am
content: That's all well as starting salaries, but computer programmers end up with higher salaries pretty quick, at least from my personal experience.But I guess what kind of programming you do.Also I guess they don't consider medical doctors as a college degree, but on the flipside I heard how much junior doctors (takes like 15 years being a doctor to not be a junior) in England make less than probably a waitress in the US where tips are allowed and encouraged and working 12 hours shifts for 12 straight days is the norm in there (know about it because NPR mentioned they are on strike at the moment).I guess that's the price of low cost health care.Also airplane pilots are on the same salary range as doctors and programmers, they used to flip order all the time, not sure where is it at right now.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 05:39:15 am
content: Quote from: miguelvp on January 22, 2016, 05:15:19 amFrom their link, they (Forbes) are clear that this is forbachelors degrees earning potential.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 05:45:28 am
content: I guess there is no bachelors in medicine or piloting, my bad.Edit, I guess also that I was basing my observation on the title of the post, not the article which doesn't like adblocker and points to images instead of the actual article.http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/11/19/the-college-degrees-with-the-highest-starting-salaries-in-2015/#550ee19a96a2

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 06:40:18 am
content: Quote from: miguelvp on January 22, 2016, 05:15:19 amAirline pilot salaries have plummeted, due to an oversupply.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 06:46:39 am
content: Quote from: miguelvp on January 22, 2016, 05:15:19 amBecoming a doctor is a trial by fire in most countries - long hours, low pay, etc. The long term rewards are pretty good, though, including in the UK. People consider it a very desirable profession, and getting into a UK medical school is very competitive. It was never one of the options I considered. I wanted to something better than repair and maintenance work.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 06:49:35 am
content: This sitehas much more extensive information. Salary by major, degree, school,etc.

author: Alexei.Polkhanov
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 07:09:28 am
content: I think Glassdoor is most accurate at least in North America.

author: Srbel
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 09:05:26 am
content: Forbes... What a joke.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 10:59:16 am
content: Quote from: miguelvp on January 22, 2016, 05:15:19 amNope. There are planned 1 day protests where junior doctors will only cover A&E, and if that doesn't get the politicians' attention it might escalate to not covering normal A&E either.QuoteNo, it is the cost of dismantling the NHS and bringing in market reforms beloved of large US corporations.If the TTIP is ratified it will give large corporations the ability to sue governments if they don't privatise our beloved NHS. The NHS is the nearest we have to a national religion; emotionally it is similar to guns in US. Nobody wants the expensive unaccountable "death squads" and extortion associated with US healthcare corporations, thank you.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 12:25:24 pm
content: Petroleum engineering won't be so well paid if the oil price stays as low as it has. And that may be the case for years to come whilst Saudi Arabia keeps pumping out cheap oil and Iran keeps up with it's nuclear promises. Fracking companies in the US are feeling the burn of cheap oil; they aren't profitable below $65 a barrel or so.

author: MrSlack
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 12:46:36 pm
content: Software is where it's at if you want cash. Such an inflated industry which I'm milking as hard as I can at the moment. Determined to retire by 45.As for the NHS comments. It's a damn good service and it is well funded. Just inefficient. They're trying to squeeze out the middle management layer who are pushing the cuts down to the staff. The staff and press are reacting to this. I know someone who works for an NHS supplier and the sort of middle management cack that goes on is when they throw £50,000 on IT at a trust at the end of a budget cycle for new kit and TFTs, store them for a year unused then write them off and sell them to a reseller for a major reduced fee for a cash backhander. Those incumbent frauds are where the cash is going and has been terrible in the public sector always. What can you do? merely privatise as private companies have to be far more accountable to the NHS. These guys are like slippery snakes - you can't negotiate a best deal; just put up with their inefficiencies. THAT's what you need to get angry about.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 01:33:37 pm
content: Quote"was". Probably not anymore in today's environment.For comparsion, MBAs from top start out at $225 - 275K now, at a reasonably good bank and maybe another $75K at an investment firm.QuoteThat is really sad. If anything, investing in our future generations should be incredibly rewarding, financially. Our longer-term outlook cannot improve if that imbalance doesn't change.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 01:34:46 pm
content: If money is a goal, look into airtraffic controllers and their degree requirement.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 07:19:43 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 22, 2016, 01:33:37 pmThose were 2014-2015 numbers. Oil industry just the last monthstarted laying offalready. "Who moved my cheese" time. Longer term, it should stabilize. But it is unlikely to be in the $100K range with the others 9 at $60-70K.MBA's starting at $225 are likely those with ~5 years exec experience going in before the MBA. They probably get into top layer immediately or fairly quickly. Top layer being they are direct-reports to head of corporate, head of company, or head of divisions.Comparing their pre-MBA salary verses the post-MBA salary (and the slope) are more telling for that population. From personal observation, those tend to have a high climb rates and high "drop dead" rate for those who doesn't make it in the (formal or informal) fast-track programs they got recruited into.Those without actual work experience pre-MBA would likely be in the $100K-$120K range (according to Forbes' typical MBA starting salary).Side note: while checking for current starting salary, I was very surprised to see Northwestern University (Kellogg) dropped to #6 when they were 1 or 2 for most of late 2000-2012, and the once power-house NYU (Stern) now doesn't make top 10! U of Pennsylvania (Wharton) is still up there at #3.Quote from: dannyf on January 22, 2016, 01:33:37 pmTrouble is the quality of the people. That it is an occupation where salary is solely based on seniority doesn't help getting the brightest.My daughter is in high school. Many of her peers aspiring to be teachers worry about getting 450 in SAT (math or reading/writing). Many of her teachers current and middle school are graduates from colleges that the top quarter's SAT is at 450. That goes a long way to explain why we need a new SAT to ensure we don't have such low scores.My view is (for the USA), we should move away from career teachers (K-12) and instead use the vast resources of retired professionals. A 65 year old retired EE guy or a 65 year old retired Chemist probably would bring in much more knowledge than someone who just graduated college with a teaching degree.Career teachers in my mind is rather like career politicians. They are too far from the real world - and many of them never worked a day in the real world.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 08:27:10 pm
content: QuoteIt is sad.I was told that teachers, particularly high school teachers, are some of the highest paid people in China. Teaching jobs, together with government jobs, and university jobs are some of the highly sought after jobs. Very competitive, as well.That wasn't the case in the 1980s but they turned it around. and look at what they have done since then.We may not be a 3rd world country now, but we are thinking like one, behaving like and surely on track to be one.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2016, 11:46:23 pm
content: BIG changes appear to be coming in all these areas (especially education and healthcare, computing, energy, even legal services)- These changes are coming very soon due to the imminent conclusion of the 10 year long plurilateral services negotiations in Geneva.Professionals in developed countries have been framed for a long time as privileged, i.e."Professional protectionists"- (protected from foreign competition) -Example of the theory driving some of this-"There are two countries, Home and Foreign. The total quantity of labour in the two countries is shown by the distance OhOf.Before a fully free migration is allowed the distribution of labor is OhL in Home and OfL in Foreign. The marginal product of labour is higher in Home than in foreign because the capital/labor ratio is higher in Home. This is shown in the figure by the higher position of the MPLh curve compared to the MPLf curve. Because of this the wage is higher in Home, at Wh compared with the wage in Foreign at Wf."In short: Home symbolizes a developed country with high automatization and high wages and Foreign a less developed country with abundant supply of labour, low automatization and low wages. If migration is fully free between the two countries and the workers are identical workers will migrate from Foreign to Home in pursuit of higher wages. The migration will finally result in an equalized capital/labor ratio in the two countries and thus equal marginal products of labor and equal wages, illustrated in the figure by the wage level W' which could be seen as the world market price of labor as the world only consists of the two countries Home and Foreign. The migration is illustrated in the figure by the distance LL' which is the amount of workers that will move from Foreign to Home so that the new distribution of labour becomes OhL' in Home and L'Of in Foreign.""Wages will thus decrease in Home and increase in Foreign resulting in a loss for the indigenous workers in Home illustrated in the figure by the area a - but a gain for the capital owners of the areas a+b. In Foreign the workers get an increased income of areas c+d+e while the capital owners lose areas d+e. The result in total is a net gain for the two countries by areas b+c which is a gain resulting from higher efficiency in the use of the total resources of the two countries."The treaties (both the existing 1995 one, which had stalled in its adoption, and the new one) attempt a global one way perpetual"progressive liberalisation". Services such as education, healthcare, "social security" etc, unless they ca maintain totally free status - by being completely noncommercialized, are framed as thefts of profits from corporations who are entitled by right to them, and the threaties make every possible attempt to liberalize them and revent any return to a public status in perpetuity.The countries such as the US that have already privatized a great deal since the signing of GATS are being held up as examples of privatization's success.Lots of pressure is being put on others to join in-Services liberalisation in the US, where healthcare has been privatized but education still is part public, part private, will likely eventually put a huge number of skilled jobs on the table as a potential prize to be won by developed countries if they liberalise as well.The price of this is loss of policy freedom. Obviously, when the right to provide education and healthcare (and healthcare insurance) services across borders - if you are the low bidder, becomes a property right enjoyed by international corporations, education and healthcare irreversibly become a privatized commercial commodity - a tradable service, similar to what . (Contrast the experience of Canada - no money involved, has still survived the worst of progressive liberalisation) with that of the UK (progressive liberalisation of the NHS is well underway) .(See the debate going on right now in India over the progressive liberalisation of education, (end of education as a right)-due to their accession to the WTO, etc. In short, they are having the debate that the other WTO nations should have had in 1995 when they signed on to the progressive liberalisation of services, giving up a large amount of policy space in the process. (Their electorate was for the most part never told this had happened. )One goal is clearly to future proof the current pattern of economic gains at the top, fully leveraging the economic impact of rapid increases in labor saving technologies. .Basically,"maximize the value in the supply chains"for best corporate advantage, mandating changes that will have a not so gradual effect to some extent of harmonizing wages and some but not all working conditions globally. According to globalization expert Saskia Sassen the changes will be globaly disruptive, especially to the former public sector, but nations that have strong public sector unions with collective bargaining agreements (many EU nations) will fare better than others. Therefore its unwise to assume that leaked documents describing positions, policies and goals for the outcome of the agreements applying to the EU will reflect the situation elsewhere.)They create and enforce so called"disciplines on domestic regulations", to end non tariff barriers to trade in services across borders, such as special visa, licensing, wage parity, quotas or economic means tests, (such as requirements that hiring of non nationals be limited to only when certain conditions apply) etc. which are framed as reducing opportunities for trading partner firms that otherwise would legally entitle them to do the work by virtue of their offering high value for money.Restrictions, laws, practices of any kind which have the effect of reducing access to trading partners firms will become challenge able in international arbitral bodies unless they can be proved to be"no more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service".Treaties also restrict any further discriminatory measures in perpetuity, i.e."capture the autonomous level of liberalisation"at the time of their signing. So anything that might keep a foreign service provider out, such as changes in wage restrictions, or government owned enterprises (such as public health insurance programs or public education programs), unless it existed previous to the signing, (perhaps even signing of the first agreement in 1995-1998) would be prohibited. The policy space afforded to elected leaders (national legislative bodies and executive leadership, i.e. presidents, premiers, chairpeople, kings, etc) is limited to those things which do not have the effect of conflicting with the goals of the agreement, which are paramount."Public services" (defined very narrowly, though, as ONLY those "services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority" which pass BOTH the following "supplied neither on a commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more service suppliers" will remain exempt fromprogressive liberalisationand subsequent e-procurement requirements, designed to increase international trade in services substantially.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 01:20:37 am
content: They are making all sorts of promises about services not being in TTIP for the simple reason that they are in TiSA, which is a 51 nation plurilateral services agreement now being negotiated in Geneva. The process actually began with the GATS and especially the second bunch of additions to it which were passed in 1998. Its my understanding that since it has already been passed in a great many countries (including the US and UK) little if any further ratification of anything GATS or WTO related is needed . The Canadian NGO CCPA at policyalternatives.ca have a good write up, which is kind of old, called "Putting Health First" which explains the various issues. Its worth reading for people in other countries too. Going back a few years, the British academic, Allyson Pollock has written extensively for BMJ and others on the effect of globalis(z)ation and "services liberalisation" (under GATS) on the NHS.Basically everything she had written is coming true. A US law student, Nicholas Skala, also wrote a scathing criticism of the GATS's effect on US health care policy space shortly before his sudden death of unknown causes in August 2009. You can read it here:http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.405.5725&rep=rep1&type=pdfQuote from: tggzzz on January 22, 2016, 10:59:16 amThey have you barking up the wrong tree. Its GATS (1995) and TiSA (negotiated since 2006, currently almost completed) that are going to impact health care and health insurance services the most.Basically, big global corporations see all the essentials as being the most potentially profitable areas, precisely because they are essential. For a public entity to betray them by allowing potential customers to walk away with these valuable services for less than full market value, or pay higher wages than would be dictated by supply and demand in a global context (in other words, wages falling as machines do more and more) is a theft from them. Google "competition policy" and you'll begin to understand. For example, how can a nation shamelessly give away education or water or health care when corporations have invested in it with expectations of high profitability. Water is the so called "White gold" of the 21st century, due to climate unpredictability. (Note the above was an attempt at sarcasm, but that is actually how they think, it seems. the fact is, they pay politicians billions of dollars and they expect something in return. What can the people offer them, a few crumbs, mixed with tears. That just wont cut it.)

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 01:38:46 am
content: QuoteI have an idea: why don't we outlaw for-profit corporations and individual properties and bank accounts? So I can live in your house tonight and drive your car to work?You know, people are always enthusiastic about taking away other people's rights to exercise their freedom; they aren't too keen on having the same medicine applied to themselves.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 01:59:14 am
content: Huh?Could you explain what you are trying to say a bit better?I think I explained what I was trying to say. Also, the things that are being pushed in these deals are new. They have never existed before. They are the ones taking things away, because previously, the people in nations could vote to change things. So don't blame me for that. Also, i wont be the one throwing you out when you cant pay your mortgage to the bank, either. Also, the people in the UK love the NHS. they didnt realize that their politicians were in bed with these multinationals, nor did the people of the US. Basically the people, of both parties, disagree with these things, and the politicians of both parties, and the lobbyists, want them.Why do they hate public health care? because it preserves the ability to have your own doctor, and stay in your own country for care, and gets the government and corporations out of health care, saving a ton of money. In case you hadnt noticed their agenda is making it more, not less expensive!

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 02:12:46 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 23, 2016, 01:38:46 amIt would be funny if we don't have candidates running for president who would advocate just that. 90% tax, borrow more, spend more, and let someone else pay for it.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 02:29:15 am
content: and that candidate is who?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 04:10:44 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on January 23, 2016, 02:12:46 amWe should start applying justice here, some users have more than their fair share of DMMs and 0.001% of the people hold 100% of the moderation rights.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 08:16:18 am
content: Quote from: cdev on January 23, 2016, 02:29:15 amBernie Sanders. He wants to tax the rich which means anyone who has a professional job - jobs like we are discussing. EE, Chemical Engineer...- He wants to tax the employer 30-40%, say the $100 dollar your employer budgeted to pay you is down to $65. (using the middle of 30-40).- Then tax the employees up to 50%, now you are down to $33.- Then the state take 10%, if you are in states like NY; now you are down to $30.- and then the city takes another 5%. And now your $100 is down to $29.- You go buy a diet coke and you pay another 8.5%. Now your $100 is down to be able to purchase about $26 worth of goods.- Oh, boy, then there is the FDIC tax, social security... Ah, the states has their DI (disability) and their unemployment insurance tax...If you want to buy a pack of smoke, forget it, your $100 is barely able to buy just a pack of cigarette because there is another huge cigarette tax.That would have been your $100 because that is your contribution to the value of the products your employer produced. Would have been $100, but you got under $20. Every dollar the government spend is taken away from the productive work of society.All those "free service" you got from the government merely means the payment you made is free from your control, and the government is spending it freely.

author: MrSlack
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 08:29:29 am
content: UK here. It's worth paying it. My kids go to a good school. My healthcare bill is always zero. I live in a clean, safe and well maintained area. If I get sick and am unable to work or end up unemployed, the state pays my mortgage aned gives me a living wage.Worth it.They tax the things that kill you like cigarettes which is fine as they're paying the healthcare bill.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 12:13:29 pm
content: QuoteIs that all they tax?they tax your income - does your income kill you?they tax your inheritance - does your inheritance kill you?they tax your home - does your home kill you?...if the basis for taxing cigarettes is their negative externalities, should they tax other things that have negative externalities? like obesity, genetic illness,stupidity, etc., to name a few.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 12:32:26 pm
content: US industry industry Sandard Operating Procedure; note how each step is simple, obvious, beneficial to the insurance company, and the net result on the person:each company has many planseach plan is financially self-funding and ringfenced from the othersjoin any plan, take a medical, preexisting conditions are excludeddecades later the company brings out a new plan with lower premiums or better payoutsanyone can leave a plan and join the new plan, but they must take a medical and preexisting conditions are excludedonlythe fit and healthy switch, leaving the rest in a smaller plansince the plan is ringfenced, the premiums risesignificantlyI remember a long NPR programme noting that a typical premium increase for those reasons from 2000 to 18000. That's significant. For comparison, at that time I was paying around 600 in tax, and there were no payout limits.Thus the provident - but unfortunate - get screwed at the end of their life when they are most in need.By design. That's immoral.As for HMOs, what's to prevent the doctors skimping on diagnosis and treatment, and pocketing the money? One thing and one thing only: the fear of being sued. Tough luck if you don't have any competent dependents: doctors bury their "mistakes".

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 12:43:43 pm
content: Quote from: MrSlack on January 23, 2016, 08:29:29 amIt's one think to like something yourself, it's another to force it on others. I like bananas but would force you to eat them.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 01:39:18 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 23, 2016, 12:43:43 pmAnd another thing to rig the system so they cannot afford to have any fruit.Doubly so when they've been paying for decades - seehttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/top-10-(salary)-and-bottom-10-college-degrees/msg848794/#msg848794

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 03:05:49 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on January 23, 2016, 08:16:18 amI would like to see the cut off brackets that lead to 90% and how that includes professional jobs like the ones discussed in here.Only thing I could find is the lower bracket per family at $250,000.After that, the income in excess of that quarter million would be taxed at a higher rate until it reaches the next bracket and so on until it hits the higher bracket.I think there are 4 brackets in total and the higher rates apply only to the income surplus over the lower brackets.That higher bracket (undisclosed yet) applies to incomes in the millions with foreign commodities, which of course, not everyone has money in the Cayman IslandsThen again Trump brings it up all the time, perhaps because that 90% will most definitely apply to him.I'm not convinced Bernie Sanders plan will be good for the economy, it might as well stagnate it but not even they have a concrete plan on paper, so until I don't see those figures I'm not too worried.So just stating that everyone will be paying 90% tax is a bit underhanded.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 03:13:48 pm
content: Quote from: MrSlack on January 22, 2016, 12:46:36 pmPrivatisation doesn't work either. The contract gets offered to the lowest bidder, rather than the best and of course a profit needs to be made on top of that. Perhaps only allowing charitable, not for profit organisations to take on health services could be a more viable option.Quote from: zapta on January 23, 2016, 12:43:43 pmWhat are you on about? His post didn't mention forcing anyone to do anything.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 03:19:41 pm
content: QuoteWhere I live, $250K will put you into absolute poverty for a family of four.QuoteDemocrats keep talking about the "prosperity" of the Eisenhower years where tax rates were in the 90% range. I would pay twice that, if they shrink the government to that of the Eisenhower years as well.So far, no takers.That tells you how smart Democrats are.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 03:22:02 pm
content: The more I think about the polarization of our political system, the more I come to appreciate this "one country, two systems" set-up.We should just split the country up. All the liberals can go to the Left State of America where you can redistribute other people's money to their hearts content, while the conservatives can go to the Right State of America where they can compete with each other to their hearts content.A win-win for all.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 03:32:53 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on January 23, 2016, 03:13:48 pmJust soThere have been too many examples of that here, notoriously in the railway sector and health sector.In too many cases the contractor has realised, after starting the contract, that they couldn't make any money out of it, and simply walked away from the mess of their making. Walking away has been both having the contract removed from them and also voluntarily thrusting the contract back to original suppliers.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 03:36:01 pm
content: First thing, this isnt true, not like you think it is.Second thing, did you see my other post, the one specifically about wages. About teh ugly big deals. (Australian law professor Matthew Rimmer has done good work studying them, as has Jane Kelsey in New Zealand, her 2008 book "Serving Whose Interests" is about the dewaging process I was describing, and it is on the web, and its worth reading. Also, she wants people to read it there.)The leaderships of both parties want that ugliness, they want wages to fall, a lot. Let Bill Gates explain why, basically this technology we are into is making work less valauable in a supply and demand sense. The "recession" is permanent, jobs as we knew then in the past are vanishing for good. which I am sure most people realize means we need to educate people much more.. But, they dont want that. They want very very cheap globalized labor. Because there is growing pressure to end corruption, globally, and pass more income on to the people who do the work. Neoliberalism is a big lie. Pitting the poor middle class against the soon to be former middle class, and the poor are basically a pawn being used to scare the wanna be rich (but actually as somebody said, people who make $250k dont feel so safe, either. )So yes, its a direct attack on all of us, to create a race to the bottom on wages, , its international, and that's the real enemy. Its totally anti-democracy because it takes all sorts of important things off the table, for good.Sanders would say more about it if he could, they have it set up so he cannot!The best I could show you is a link to a EU "mandate" (that's a bad name because its profoundly difficult to understand and is anything but a mandate) document, made public to much fanfare last year, that you probably would not understand, (every line has a double meaning that requires 25 years of knowledge of specialized trade deal lingo to understand)but I will only do it when I can tell that you saw my other post and that I'm not typing onto thin air, as happens so often.Note, I am not your enemy. I don't want the things you attribute to me either. And neither does Bernie Sanders.I am just a normal, struggling middle class guy who doesnt want bad things to happen to our country because of greed. Nobody wants anything for nothing.OTOH, the big health care companies are going to do all the things they accuse "government health care" of doing and its provable. First thing is, globalize all the professions so that they can bring doctors and nurses in from abroad at will and pay them next to nothing. As a right, given to the middlemen, HUGE foreign services firms, as subcontractors.BTW, Sanders is truly unique in that he and Elizabeth Warren are actually on the people's side (which means wealthy people too, BTW.) Again, the people who are engineering this have been working on it for well over 25 years and they have gotten away with not telling the whole country - not just our country, dozes of countries, to varying degrees, what they are doing. They are tearing up the NHS and similar other state assisted anything that helps people do anything, with G-A-T-removethis-S, and soon, T this and T that. They go on autopilot when certain things get approved and no more voting . Forever.Quote from: Rick Law on January 23, 2016, 08:16:18 amLook at what the tobacco company did to Australia for trying to change tobacco labeling to make it clearer that cigarettes cause cancer, AFTER they signed a trade deal. Look at what the Dutch insurance company A***** did to the Slovak Republic after they voted for single payer in 2006 after only a few years of private insurance. (They realized they could not afford that system and wanted out!) You can read that on italaw. Look for document italaw3207 .You can read the cases and the logic on the web site italaw.com. Worth bookmarking.Read this too. Let me know you saw and downloaded this paper.http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.405.5725&rep=rep1&type=pdf

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 03:50:46 pm
content: Under Sanders Taxes:The marginal rate is extended from $118,500 per household to $250,000 per household so 2.2% increase on existing brackets. No idea what the standard deductions will be per family member yet.Income in between $250K and $500K will be 37% not too far fetched.Income in between $500K and $2M will be 43%$2M to $10M 48%Above $10M 52%Also treating capital gain and dividends at the same tax rate as income.Sources:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/17/bernie-sanders-new-health-care-plan-is-his-biggest-attack-on-the-rich-so-far/http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2016/01/bernie-sanders-releases-tax-plan-54-top-rate-on-income-capital-gains-and-dividends-double-the-estate.htmlI'm not saying this is a good plan, just not the 90% thrown in here that would apply to engineers.That's just false.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 04:20:28 pm
content: Those rates are more in line with historic tax rates, and still nowhere near as high as they were at some other times.Its worth exploringhttp://ctj.org- they study taxes and package authoritative data on comparisons between US personal and corporate tax rates and those in the rest of the world.-------Some other arguments for single payer, with climate changing and numerous tropical zoonotic illnesses becoming established in the huge Mississippi Valley (because of the low elevations) we are going to NEED to change to a health care system that treats everybody for free or the burden of disease will rapidly become crippling. Look at this new Zita virus. Imagine the cost to society if it goes unchecked. Look at Greece where malaria, long under control has come back with a vengeance. Due to a breakdown of local governmets ability to keep vector disases under control. That is already happening in the US where differential diagnosis (finding out what of a number of diseases with similar symptoms may be causing illness) instead they denigrate testing as "defensive medicine" and just treat symptoms, or make up diseases that are just descriptions of symmptoms and claim they are psychosomatic. When they could be cured.Basically they do that because they dont want to admit to the country that they are greedy. That would not happen if we had single payer. Doctors would be professional. And since rich and poor would depend on it, we all would start asking for a HIGHER QUALITY OF POLITICIANS AND POLITICAL DISCOURSE!They are just pretending to argue, because they don't want to tell us that ISDS is taking away their and the future President's power to CHANGE anything without a huge bailout each time they do it. In the case of healthcare that might be years worth of GDP. So lets not fall into the trap, insurance rates are going up and quality going down fast. They are like addicts who need to be told to stop.Drug prices too. See on bilaterals.org under issues >> intellectual property >> medicines. Thats a good site for learning about the history of all this. Also, in the US, EPI.org has some stuff about the so called movement of natural persons provisions in the services deals. But its understated. Actually, no US media has covered that issue yet. So its going to hit us broadsides. The only site you can read the truth on T eesa is wiki leeks. But again, almost nobody understands their lingo. They use english phrases as meaning different things that are quite complicated. For example, "water" means leverage, as in having lots of jobs to put on the bargaining table.-------Quote from: miguelvp on January 23, 2016, 03:50:46 pm

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 04:33:13 pm
content: The people who are pushing all the wedge issues are trying to split the country up. And the fact is, we are more alike than different, and have the same dreams and goals.We're both being lied to, a lot. We have to rise above it. We'll be a stronger country than ever before if we do.Quote from: dannyf on January 23, 2016, 03:22:02 pmDanny, did you know that most of the taxes are collected in, i.e. come from the coasts? And flow to the Midwest and South? Where incomes are lower and tax revenues are also lower? We are the ones subsidizing you. Also, read my previous posts. Under neoliberal "labour mobility" you would all be competing with the whole world, which would drive your wages down to global average levels. But corporations from other countries would perform that work, their workers would, laws would have to be harmonized to allow it.Also, Obama's past is he was an attorney for a large real estate speculator, "slum lord" who stole a lot of money and left a lot of people without homes. That's not typical Democratic behavior, is it? In short, he came into office on deceptive terms.His big push is for these three huge secret T deals. Which all represent bundles of bad ideas, big changes, made irreversible would really betray the country's working people.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 04:36:55 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on January 23, 2016, 04:20:28 pmDo you propose 'free' healthcare only for highly infectious and dangerous diseases or for everything?

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 04:38:09 pm
content: QuoteDon't you think that's for a reason?Rather than those mumbo-jumbo, I would propose that we just simply declare that from this day onward, everyone works for the state and the state takes care of us all.After all, you cannot eat freedom for lunch. Free lunch? that's a different story,

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 04:40:06 pm
content: QuoteWhenever someone says that to me, I start to check my wallet,QuoteWho are "we" here?

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 04:56:50 pm
content: Just to note something.Under Sanders tax plan any income under $118,500 will have a 2.2% tax hike, so it's not nothing (an extra $2,607 of what you paid last year)If only he would have left the lower margin alone and increase the tax 2.2% on the income between $118,500 and $250,000 then it wouldn't sound to bad for me.Let's say your income is $125,000, your tax increase would be $2,750if the lower margin was left alone then the 2.2% hike would only apply on $125,000-$118,500 ($6,500) or $143 tax increase from last year.So there is a nefarious reason on raising the lower margin which I think most won't realize.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 05:11:57 pm
content: I think top quality healthcare being free for everybody from birth to death would be a hugely positive thing, and thats what I want. I don't think that health care should be a buy or die situation.Quote from: zapta on January 23, 2016, 04:36:55 pmAnd what's just as important, I don't want to see this country forced to give up our minimum wage, and give up our decent paying professional jobs, to preserve a barbaric system that only succeeds in keeping poor people poorer and making it harder for millions of people to participate in the workforce because if they made even the tiniest amount of money they would ZAP- suddenly make too much for a "subsidy" and be unable to afford health care or drugs that keep them healthy and able to work.http://www.world-psi.org/sites/default/files/documents/research/en_tisaresearchpaper_hqp_internal.pdfBTW, Study after study shows that eliminating user fees paradoxically saves a lot of money. The insurance layer may double the cost of healthcare because of all the extra bureaucracy, both for insurers and providers- also because many people never get care at the beginning - when illnesses are cheap to treat. In the US today, people are terrified to go to the doctor because of sudden arbitrary hidden fees. Its getting worse and worse very quickly.Contrast the US attitude with the refreshing pragmatic approach illustrated here:"CFHI - Myth: User Fees Ensure Better Use of Health Services"http://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/Libraries/Mythbusters/Myth_User_Fees_EN.sflb.ashxAnd especially the papers here, almost all of them illustrate one area or another we've been deceived about. For example, more competition in health care increases prices- not decreases them.http://www.pnhp.org/resources/pnhp-research-the-case-for-a-national-health-programEspecially read the link at the bottom about state health reform flatlining. That shows that they knew from the beginning that the things they claimed would save money with Obamacare would fail. They just did it to prevent discussion of single payer, which we know works. Why, because pushing these horrible models is US trade policy. Its called "competition policy" and its bad trade policy.A policy so bad they bend over backwards to push it globally, holding out other people's jobs (millions of public jobs) as bait if poor countries change to "our" horrible system - which they know they cannot afford! (Speaking about 'progressive liberalisation' and commoditization of education, which confronts the same policy mistakes, due to the test in GATS Article I:3 (b) and (c) --- a core problem- its a return to the caste system, that's what one blog in India said)Seehttp://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.405.5725&rep=rep1&type=pdfInstead we were fed a bill of goods, a bait and switch.Also: Don't confuse Obamacare, WRITTEN BY THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY- with any kind of reform. Given that we already knew, from research which had been done over decades from SCHIP (the children's insurance program) and also all the same ideas having been tried before in the states and failing repeatedly,THEY knew Obamacare was going to fail before they did it!!(it was done to BUY TIME to push the Geneva Deal through in secret, and trap us into the insurance system by means of GATS Article 21 - which carves it in stone- see herehttp://www.maine.gov/legis/opla/ctpchlthcaresub.pdf- To buy time while preventing any and all intelligent discussion of known to be fiscally sound solutions that would work, that were known to work, like single payer) THAT subterfuge, just so they could perform a huge experiment on the country (which now clearly has also failed) was and is a crime. Human experimentation not only violates international law. Its a crime against humanity.Forcing people to participate in medical (economics or not) research without informed consent, is a crime against humanity.See the Helsinki Declaration athttp://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 05:20:13 pm
content: QuoteDon't you think everyone getting a mansion is a good thing?How about everyone getting personal chaffers? Or nice clothes? Or quality belts to hang their pants? What about nice cars and some good looking or handsome maids? ...Don't you think it is unfair that only the super riches like you can afford to have nice things like that in life?QuoteThen you can have all you want - just leave the rest of us alone.I want to wear shorts every day; I want to eat fatty foods; I want to go to bed at 7pm; I want to drive old beat-up gas-gazzling turcks; I want ....That doesn't give me the right to force you to want it too.That's why I am against Obamacare.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 05:28:04 pm
content: Let's go back to salaries and less into politics.Taxing is one thing since it relates to salaries as long as we use real numbers not propaganda.I guess you can back up your claims with real numbers, shouldn't be hard.For example, you can only get a Health Savings Account if you have a High Deductible Health Plan (meaning you have to pay out of pocket up to about $3,000 per family or $1500 per individual instead of the $10-$40 co-payement before.Then again there are other options but if you have a family and want to cover them against anything that could go wrong without going into financial chaos, you are pretty much forced into a High Deductible Plan.No matter who is the current captain steering our boat, they find more clever ways to dry us up from our money while we smile and thank them. Nothing new there.So analyze the plans so we can see why is worse or better, don't use the propaganda and political views. Just show us why one is better than the other and the consequences overall for the general public.Edit: but I digress, we are steering away from the OP subject.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 06:03:21 pm
content: Quote from: miguelvp on January 23, 2016, 03:05:49 pmBernies' highest bracket is today for over $1million. He is going to continue oversize borrowing for spending. That means inflation. So, in the few years you would be at that bracket.Looking at bracket is a distraction that politicians use to fool us.You may think you are buying the burger in NYC and paid 8.5% sales tax and you think that is the tax you are paying, you are being fooled.- If they tax the burger you eat, that is taxing you.- If they tax the guy who owns the burger place you are eating at, that is taxing you.- If they tax the place that the cow turned into meat, that is taxing you.- If they tax the place that the calf turned into a cow, that is taxing you.So, don't underestimate how much damage thinking like these is going to cost you over your life time.- We in the USA is back to the 1970's for "work participation rate." 94 million adults of working age not working.- We are back to 1990's in median income, more than 15 years of income gain lost.- We have a business failure count exceeding that of business start, means our businesses are shrinking.- We are loosing business to overseas. Not small ones, even Pfizer is moving to Ireland.That is just 7 years of destruction, we are back near 15 years in income, back 40 years in worker participation rate. So, don't underestimate the cost of having these nut cases in power.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 06:09:48 pm
content: Quote from: miguelvp on January 23, 2016, 04:56:50 pmAnd it should be noted that under his plan, by eliminating college tuition and expanding "medicare for all" - all but the highest income brackets (which includes me!) will see large savings.Whether your agree with his approach or not, it's important, like you say - to look at the facts.Yes - we know who the ones are here who oppose any kind of tax increases or any government involvement in health care or education - no need to repeat the same old tired talking points. But any reasonable discussion should be based on facts.Glib statements like "he wants to take my money", "tax at 90%", "big government", etc, etc doesn't lead to any rational discussion of different plans or approaches.Personally I'm in favor of increasing income taxes on the upper incomes (yes, that includes myself) - AND - a smaller government and lower overall government spending. The devil as always is in the details.The truth his - the last 40 years of cutting taxes on upper incomes, borrowing and spending more (which has happened underbothRepubs and Dems - presidents and congresses)- has got us where we are now - not a good place IMHO.In addition to resulting in unconscionable government debt - we have completely dysfunctional health care and education systems that feed peoples money into the wrong places and turn large percentages of the population into slaves to medical and education debt - I personally know many middle class families with 6 figure health care or education debt. Where did most of that money go? Not to those on the ground at the colleges or hospitals - I can say that from first hand experience in both settings.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 06:34:15 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on January 23, 2016, 06:03:21 pmWhile I agree with the decay you cite - you don't honestly think anyone here is uninformed enough to believe that these trends are due to any changes that have happened over just the last 7 years do you? By that kind of logic the prosperity of the 1990s was due to Bush senior and Clinton's tax increases.I would agree that Obama and the Republican congresses of the last 7 years have done nothing to reverse those trends but those problems have been decades in the making.If you look past the propaganda (from both sides) you'll find that on anything except a few social issues- Obama's administration has been just a continuation of the same policies policies of Bush. For example he extended the Bush "temporary" tax cuts.People are tired of the same old Blue versus Red, Dem versus Repub arguments and propaganda. Clinton = Bush = Obama on most issues - in particular on the policies that have caused the problems you cite. The propaganda on both sides is designed to fire up their voter bases and take their eyes off the ball. Both sides are bought and paid for. We've essentially had the same party in power for the past 40 years.Why do you think Trump and Sanders are creating such a ruckus? Hopefully people are finally starting to wake up.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 06:42:45 pm
content: High Deductible Health Plans are bad news, because they leave people on the hook for huge costs. The insurance companies are EXPERTS at collecting money for decades from people when they are healthy and then dumping them when they get sick, poof, like that. As long as we are trapped into coddling them, and cajoling them to keep them profitable to avoid the "moral hazard" of having to be responsible stewards on health care quality and afford-ability like governments almost everywhere else, they have got us trapped.And then the back room trade deals make it irreversible and permanent, making it so no future President or Congress can change a damn thing except to make it worse.And they have to lie about it because what legislator can tell their constituents that?This change arguably has already occurred, 20 years ago in 1995-1998 with GATS, which barred all the reforms in the table below:-------------------Health system reforms and potential GATS violations - (Source:http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.405.5725&rep=rep1&type=pdf)Health system reform/regulationGATS provisions potentially violatedImplementation of a single-payernational health insurance systemArt/ VIII:4 (establishment of “new monopolies”), Art. XVI:2(a) (numerical limits on number of suppliers-barssinglepayer), Art. XVI:2(e) (legal form of supplier)Market-based coverage expansions through subsidies and insurance firm regulationArt. VI:5(a)(i) (restrictions not more burdensome than necessary to insure the quality of the service), Art. XVI:2(a) (numerical limits), Art. XVI:2(b) (total value of transaction), Art. XVII:1 (national treatment of foreign firms), Art. XVII:3 (modifies conditions of competition)Reforming the privatization of MedicareArt. VIII:4 (establishment of “new monopolies”), Art. XVI:2(a) (numerical limits)Specialty hospital regulationArt. XVI:2(a) (numerical limits) Art. XVI:2(b) (total value of transaction), Art. XVI:2(e)(legal form of supplier)Art. XVII:1 (national treatment of foreign firms)Catastrophic reinsuranceArt. XVII:1 (national treatment of foreign firms)Disease management regulationArt. XVI:2(e) (legal form of supplier)Medical-loss ratiosArt. XVI:2(b) (total value of transaction)Nonprofit hospital taxesArt. XVII:1 (national treatment of foreign firms)(So this shows that all of the alleged "good" things about "Obamacare" are likely to be challenged in the WTO as soon as it gets jurisdiction- which means as soon as it becomes international trade, thats the plan, so that the crisis they created can be "cured" by their race to the bottom. Numerous other fields will be subjected to the same "disciplines on domestic regulation" Licensing and visa laws- i.e. domestic regulations- have to be conformed so they do not contradict the goals of the agreements - increasing foreign trade being paramount. (This isnt wholly new- just little known up until now- see here:http://www.tilj.org/content/journal/42/num1/Worster55.pdf)Next is a rare published document from the pending plurilateral services agreement - HERE:>>>http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6891-2013-ADD-1-DCL-1/en/pdf(Those talks are almost concluded in Geneva ) The negotiating goals for Europe. Warning. Virtually none of the very few people who have written about the file seem to understand it, the rest haven't. Which is very embarrassing for me to point out - I would like to frame people in NGOs who study such things professionally as doing their jobs, but it has to be said. And very badly have screwed up by their responses to it. Its illustrative of how obscure this area is. SO, please heed my warning- the entire document has to be looked up line by line (and all previous documents going back to the late 80s- especially GATS- every bit of it refenenced and also especially - a survey done of the critical literature and international jurisprudence on the portions referenced ( !) they must be consulted to understand it. Which might take several days of an average persons time to do. It needs to be done because nothing else will effect our future world more than this thing.Also, much more is on Wikileaks but again, the commentary on WL is LACKING THE CRUCIAL CONTEXT FROM THE PAST DEALS, lets not forget they were drafted in the late 1980s and signed, without much thought as to their content by legislators, early to mid 1990s- of variable quality, some is really good, others are really bad, and in critical ways. Nobody wants to get these things, its understandable why. But assume the worst, its likely to be that way.As far as what will salaries be?- Please read this:http://www.cuts-geneva.org/pacteac/images/Documents/EAC%20Forum/Forum17/EAC%20Geneva%20Forum-%20WTO%20Note%2017.pdf- The point of view in the Third World - which is gearing up to provide innumerable currently expensive professional services.High US minimum wages (!) are a trade barrier to keep their (doctors and nurses and engineers-(?) ) out, they seem to be saying. Worth reading.)

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 07:05:57 pm
content: is anybody here reading any of the things I am saying, please let me know that you see them because from the discussion up to here I am guessing you dont- Especially follow and read the links because they show you sonething very important which the US media has not told us a shred about.LINKS HERE:>>>This is Nick Skala's brilliant paper- Must read.http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.405.5725&rep=rep1&type=pdfThis is an explanation about how Canadian healthcare saves money. One important point is, a stitch in time saves nine.http://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/Libraries/Mythbusters/Myth_User_Fees_EN.sflb.ashxSee the papers here:http://www.pnhp.org/resources/pnhp-research-the-case-for-a-national-health-programAlso, people need to read up on T i S A -http://www.cuts-geneva.org/pacteac/images/Documents/EAC%20Forum/Forum17/EAC%20Geneva%20Forum-%20WTO%20Note%2017.pdfBTW, I am against Obamacare too, because its a deception written by the health insurance industry, that keeps healthcare unaffordable and forces people to choose between underinsurance- inadequate health insurance, health care and rent or food. Its designed to fail - It was done the way it was because of bad trade ideology, which basically the American people were never told about. the US media has - over twenty plus years, offered us practically zero zero zero coverage of THAT. Zero. meanwhile, the US is pushing these deals in our name, that force other countries to privatize their healthcare and educational systems. ending healthcare and education as a right. Doing something thats arguably really bad, which has to be hidden from us, in our names.Re: Obamacare- As can be shown in this paper, most of the core proposals in "managed competition" had all already been attempted, and had failed, they already knew it would fail - see here: Woolhandler, et al “State Health Reform Flatlines,” International Journal of Health Services, Volume 38, Number 3, Pages 585-592, 2008 link:http://www.pnhp.org/states_flatline/State%20Health%20Reform%20Flatlines%20IJHS%20-%202008.pdf- however, the GOPs non proposal is even worse- both will trap us in the private insurance trap by globalizing the provision of low quality, high profit health care, the opposite of what needs to be done-Single payer, on the other hand, simplifies the whole system, and the fact is, the fact that everybody uses it is what keeps systems good. If you give the rich a way to go to the head of theline or pay extra for better, that - intentionally, as shown by a great many papers, leads to privatization and the death of a thousand cuts for a health care or educational system. See discussion here-http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National_Office_Pubs/putting_health_first.pdfand here alsohttp://www.iatp.org/files/GATS_and_Public_Service_Systems.htmandhttp://www.ciel.org/Publications/PublicServicesScope.pdfThe same trade deals - for the same reasons, also pose a threat to affordable public education and independent scientific research, globally.Education, too- globally - seehttps://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/tisa-versus-public-serviceshttp://www.eua.be/activities-services/news/newsitem/15-02-05/EUA_Council_statement_on_TTIP_and_TISA.aspx>>http://www.eua.be/Libraries/publication/EUA_Statement_TTIP.pdf?sfvrsn=2http://www.eua.be/Libraries/higher-education/GATS_en.pdf?sfvrsn=0https://www.tni.org/en/article/how-tisa-strolls-off-with-our-serviceshttp://www.ifut.ie/content/etuce-trade-services-agreement-tisa-threat-quality-education

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 07:34:43 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 23, 2016, 05:20:13 pmThose are all, what most people would consider to be luxury items you've listed there. Why do you consider decent quality healthcare to be a luxury?Perhaps you could say that only the rich should be able to afford their children a decent education.In all other developed parts of the world, decent quality healthcare is considered to be a necessity not a luxury.QuoteEat what you want, go to bed when you like but don't drive dirty trucks which pollute the air I breath.QuoteI don't like Obamacare either. Obama should do more but the insurance companies have too much power and stop him.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 08:31:22 pm
content: QuoteBeing as good a con as he is, Obama is incredibly honest when he said that "election has consequences".Too bad voters ignored that.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 08:33:24 pm
content: QuoteProbably not. You are a prolific quoter: you copy-and-paste content and links. Unless you are able to articulate what you copy-and-pasted in concise and short sentences of your own, you haven't understood it.If you haven't understood it, what's the point for others to have a discussion with you?

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 08:46:09 pm
content: I have understood this. And I'm trying to explain something really important to you about future wages.You haven't understood me.Here is Sanya Reid Smith's good explanation.BTW, I agree with you on Obama's speaking abilities.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 08:47:35 pm
content: QuoteIf you cannot explain it to others in a way that they can understand it, you haven't understood it yourself.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 09:12:11 pm
content: cdev-Thanks for posting those things. Unfortunately your points will be lost on those stuck in the false Dem vs Repub, Liberal versus Conservative dichotomy.The global Neoliberal economic agenda will continue to be pushed by the corporate owned political sock puppets on both sides of the isle (Clinton, Bush, Rubio, Cruz being the prime current examples).These are not simple issues for most to grasp and the workings of the WTO and global trade agreements are obscured enough to prevent the masses from connecting the dots. The corporate owned media has no interest in educating the public. It doesn't help that these issues are complex enough to prevent their explanation in the simple sound bites the masses have come to expect. It's sad but true that so many need to be spoon fed information.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 09:30:22 pm
content: The gist of it is that the uncertainly level and especially the chances of making a decent incomenomatter what you doare likely to fall a lot in the coming years, and most people will be lucky if they can just keep a roof over their heads. The changes are likely to hit a lot of people who up until now have been able to stay fairly solvent, in particularly the owners of domestic (one country) businesses. Because these deals are likely to be giving multinational firms huge advantages that no one country firm can compete with, especially on labor costs. People have no idea."No wage parity requirements" No "necessity tests" or "economic needs tests". The WTO or RGFS (Real Good Friends of Services) are likely to gain jurisdiction once something like selling across state lines creates an environment that foreign firms want to operate in. It may already have happened. Via aquisition. As soon as a multinational company owns a US health insurance firm, then the ability to go to public health care ends forever. At least thats what they say.A case - the US Online Gambling case between Antigua and barbuda and the US over online gambling services is illustrative of how these "openings" can happen silently and invisibly.Services liberalisation intends to lower the cost of medicine and increase the profitability to the many corporate middlemen, simultaneously, and that may hit the medical profession hard, doctors and nurses. Teaching and academia also.Despite the fact that doctors are needed in developing countries, the prospect of working in a developed country, even if a staffing firm talks a third or a half of your meager salary and you have to live six to a room in a dorm with your other co-workers, is alluring, especially for newly minted professionals.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 09:45:27 pm
content: You seemed to have touched on three distinct topics in one post: income uncertainty, online gambling and service liberalization. You provided a lot of assertions and but much analysis as to why and how those topics are connected.Take income uncertainty for example:QuoteWhy? What are the facts and analysis that led you to the conclusion? Assume you have 30 seconds to answer that.Income uncertainty is not a big problem: savings and insurance / unemployment benefits for example can address that effectively.How would "income uncertainty" lead to "giving multinational firms huge advantages"? ....Again, you will be a lot more credible if you don't copy-and-paste. Instead, roll up your sleeves and present your original analysis here.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 10:20:27 pm
content: Well, market liberalisation means that the framing of services provision (non-manufacturing jobs) as follows is accepted:Under the WTO-GATS definition which is continued in TiSA there are four modes of supplying services: cross-border trade, consumption abroad, commercial presence, and presence of natural persons.Cross-border supply is defined to cover services flows from the territory of one Member into the territory of another Member (e.g. banking or architectural services transmitted via telecommunications or mail);Consumption abroad refers to situations where a service consumer (e.g. tourist or patient) moves into another Member's territory to obtain a service;Commercial presence implies that a service supplier of one Member establishes a territorial presence, including through ownership or lease of premises, in another Member's territory to provide a service (e.g. domestic subsidiaries of foreign insurance companies or hotel chains); andPresence of natural persons consists of persons of one Member entering the territory of another Member to supply a service (e.g. accountants, doctors or teachers). The Annex on Movement of Natural Persons specifies, however, that Members remain free to operate measures regarding citizenship, residence or access to the employment market on apermanentbasis.The reason I referred to online gambling case is the fact that the "opening" of the US market to Antigua's online gambling services (in the US online gambling case) was seen to have occurred without any action on our part, invisibly.However, it made an irreversible change in our ability to control an important "service sector" gambling.The point I am trying to make is that any international activity whatsoever then triggers this invisible, irreversible change - and it may and certainly will then occur in ANY service sector no matter how important - and then our ability to regulate that service sector through the traditional methods then vanishes. irreversibly. Democratic control (meaning control by voting) After all in a world of highly mobile capital, ias its claimed that suddenly now, unlike the past several thousands of years, "investors need stability". That's framed as more important than anything in this new, completely amoral new way of doing things.Otherwise, for example, in a huge depression, people might be dying, etc, and there might bepoliticalpressure onelectedofficials to help the poor starving indigenous workers, preventing maximum advantage from being taken of them.Do you get it. National laws cant conflict with the new international rules, if they do, they have to be changed.However the public is guaranteed to not be told this. They go on as before, however, the ability of senators, congresspeople, presidents, etc, to actually change these things, in a nation is severely limited. Permanently.The exceptions are so extremely narrow that they could be said to only very very rarely, almost never apply.The reason multinational service providers gain a large advantage is they have a different regulatory and cost environment. Additionally, they gain an ability to challenge local, national, etc, laws they can successfully frame as having an adverse effect on their business under a nuber of different kinds of legal standards which are (by design) TOTALLY unfamilliar to Americans- The ability to challenge something like a domestic regulation and have a international body staffed with corporate trade lawyers just change it, is not something Americans or people from other countries are ready for because its completely arbitrary but the effect it could have could easily be life changing. Nobody is going to get loans forgiven because the minimum wage or the wage rates in a field change substantially. That wont happen. What is hapening is that risks of all kinds are being shifted to those least able to pay for them because the other involved groups have more political power.The indigenous workers of a member state will likely have to bear the burden. Various laws and standards vary around the globe and the best that workers in a country will be able to hope for is that some kind of lowest common denominator gets observed, but the chances to me seem that many wage and safety laws will diminish rapidly due to countries, states and companies desperately trying to get a diminishing pool of business. This is called a "race to the bottom".US companies will want some of that business so they will pressure jurisdictions to eliminate laws of any kind that prevent moneymaking. So they can bid internationally. But thse changes will apply to everybody because of national treatment and most favored nation.Its even possible that automation will be making it possible to automate so many tasks that fewer and fewer jobs will need to be staffed.Seehttp://www.wti.org/fileadmin/user_upload/nccr-trade.ch/wp4/publications/Working_Paper_20143.pdfsimply their ability to pay whatever their home country expects of them. Since workers are not here permanently, wage parity requirements, quotas economic needs tests, visa requirements, etc, all cannot act as a barrier to frustrate the goals of the agreement. Low wages is a serious advantage that low wage countries view as their main competitive advantage. If they can pay an engineer ten dollars a day they can and will use that advantage to get work. As long as its not permanent, a situation which remains undefined, its legal. What they pay their employees may (I think it likely will) become off limits to us. We wont know what they pay. How big of a motivator will it be to cash strapped communities to pay so much less for services. A big one, as taxes will be vanishing as lots of people lose their jobs and homes, businesses etc. and are replaced by other people.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 10:24:03 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 23, 2016, 08:31:22 pmGotta give you that one. You are right, he was "honest" about that. He also came right out and talked about driving electricity cost up, so forth. His interview with a Chicago news radio clearly described his lack of respect of the Constitution.I put honest in quote because while he said that every now and again, those were (in my judgement) his slip-ups rather than his intended message.This is (was) a thread to discuss college degree salary. This is not a political forum. So lengthy discussion on politics/tax/politicians/nut-cases would not be appropriate here.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 10:52:37 pm
content: Obama is a symptom rather than a cause.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 10:53:51 pm
content: QuoteIf you can do all of that within 30 seconds, in a concise / short paragraph, you have understood it.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 11:22:01 pm
content: There have to be ways to prevent this and prevent a global race to the bottom because- in my opinion, it isnt good for ANYBODY. Nobody will walk away better off because of it. Not even the big multinationals that are pushing it, IMHO. They are just doing it because they can.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2016, 11:48:50 pm
content: Let me dissect it for you:QuoteSo you want to prevent competition? Is that all this is about?QuoteWhy? since, by your account, everyone is doing it, unless you assume that they are all stupid, you have a high hurdle to clear in articulating why it everyone is doing things so detrimental to their own interests.QuoteWhy?QuoteNo corporation is in the business of doing things "because they can". They are in the business of making money (="better off").You have basically painted a picture where everyone is going crazy making themselves worse off, and you are the only one who sees that but you don't know how to get out of it.It doesn't paint a very good picture of YOU.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 12:02:59 am
content: I think the cause was that they estimated 20+ years ago that automation would take much longer than it has been, a very common error. So they overvalued the value of the markets that they wanted to trade those (other people's) jobs for. because if automation goes as fast as it is now or (100% chance of this one) much faster (because its increasing exponentially) its not such a good deal for them because the market access they get will be to a market thats not so robust (in South Asia, Africa, South America, etc.) .

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 12:19:50 am
content: so productivity gains, not competition, are the route cause of "income uncertainty"?QuoteWho are "they"?It helps you if your writing can be more concise.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 12:39:00 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 23, 2016, 09:45:27 pm!!! I think you're being quite overly optimistic about the generosity of both business and governments. Remember the competition to lower costs will be quite fierce. If a shirt only costs a penny, do you wash it or buy a new one every time? Workers will be cheap like that. Look at the energy, domestic service, and construction service industries in the Middle East. Thats a glimpse of the future.Remember, because public education is being framed as a form of theft of profits from the increasingly influential global educational brands, it is being phased out, by treaty. Its being framed as a theft from corporations. Because people wont buy something they can get for less than its market value. So they will have to do without.The cost of education may become quite high, and meanwhile, due to not having that education, many people will not just be struggling, they will have no work and no chance of getting any, ever. Will they be able to afford water, food, or any of the valuable necessities of life? Thats their business! Look, in a way I am trying to be sarcastic here, but I am telling you the truth, not what you want to hear, like politicians who are embarrassed to tell people they gave all these rights away, already.Workers will have to compete for jobs like they do today except there will be far fewer jobs. That means wages must fall, a lot. They will make literally nothing. Maybe food but not enough to survive well, just enough to make it through the day.Example of what I mean:http://www.northkoreanrefugees.com/2008-01-kwon.htmof course, machines will do all that work in the richer countries, but in some poor countries, people may still be able to work.Gestational surrogacy may remain one of the few areas where people cannot be replaced, for a while.What work exists may still be done, but by telepresence workers from other parts of the globe - (or physical workers here due to services liberalisation.)Why pay more?Those who have very low costs, (child workers) and whose status is such that they can become pawns in the game more readily (for example, people in debtors prisons, having been duly convicted of a crime) will be working, (later AIs will do much of that work.)See:http://www.eua.be/Libraries/publication/EUA_Statement_TTIP.pdf?sfvrsn=2Quote

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 01:46:12 am
content: Quote from: cdev on January 24, 2016, 12:39:00 amMaking people more dependent on the government will not help them competing with more motivated people from other countries.Basically you outlined here a socialist plan that tried in a few places, ended up with oppressed regimes and failed miserably.It's not up to you to tell other free citizens how to live their lives or how to spend their money. Just because you want 'free' things doesn't justify forcing other to pay for it.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 01:51:06 am
content: You should not believe everything you read on research of the brain. Maybe it's true the frontal cortex shrink, but as for learning I call the study BS.I've learned quite a bit over the course of my existence and at age 50+ I'm not slowing down a bit. Just picked up electronics just a mere two years ago, I can do Verilog, VHDL and learning the ins and outs of particular MCUs all of which I had no prior knowledge and of course learning all the toolchains requried. On top of that I've been keeping up with my career which happens to be programming, that includes C++11 and ramping up to develop on the new consoles out there XB1 and PS4 with all their new complexities.As for education and finding work etc. BS as well, it's in no ones interest to have a consumer group that can't consume.Work hard and don't stop growing your skills.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 01:58:21 am
content: I agree with you completely, but on an individual business level nobody wants to pay. Its like the OP was saying, everybody wants to take something from (them). Remember the care of the poor sick(climate change will render huge numbers of people permanently sick from various illnesses which would cost too much to diagnose and cure given their incomes) and disabled will likely be outsourced so they will be on the other side of the planet, perhaps or maybe even on Mars. (just kidding there, I predict maybe Nauru.)

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 02:24:15 am
content: I for one don't mind paying taxes, well I do but I really don't mind.I do fork well over 1/3 of what I make already with no other return than a somewhat healthy economy that maintains my way of life and that's enough payback for me.Politics aside and your random abuses of power non withstanding.I DO pride myself of being part of the backbone of this great country of ours even with its flaws and freeloaders.But the current generations are a bit too entitled, because overall they had it easy, so they demand a lot and give little. Of course I'm exaggerating but it's a trend. Not a good trend in my opinion. Government or anybody owes you anything, be part of the whole or get the f out.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 02:53:58 am
content: You misunderstood what i was trying to say, I think. You're still thinking like its the 20th century and its simply a matter of personal ability or initiative.But now suppose current trends continue.http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-billionaires-wealthy-half-world-population-combinedQuoteNow 62 people own half the world's wealth, down from 388 just six years ago.We all grew up in s society with public education, but what if the next generation doesn't? If the only reason to educate people was for them to make you rich, right? Suppose the need for 6.9 billion out of the 7 billion vanishes. the need for all those people to work is absent. Its not personal, they just aren't needed, unless they can do something better than anybody else in the world can do that thing. And most people can't, maybe they are just not quite there. Or maybe they are nowhere close, and never will be. their lives have been too focused on their families, not making money.the point I am trying to make is, its a race nobody wins. because most jobs are simply going away. We're not winning anything by getting rid of all thats good about government like public education and health care, all we're doing is guaranteeing a crippled, dysfunctional society that ends up in some kind of nightmare scenario.By the way, this is happening in the whole world, not just the US, the wealthy are circling the wagons and using trade deals to future proof their wealth, in a very aggressive manner, taking advantage of the trust people place in politicians out of habit. Its certainly happening in the US, the UK, Australia and New Zealand, thats for sure.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 03:07:19 am
content: You are in the most leveled play field in the planet. Not all of the 1 percenters started that way.What's next? even field Olympic games? So the best athletes will have added handicaps to give a chance to the rest?"S/he is too good and I deserve to win an Olympic medal just as anyone else"While we are at it, maybe everyone deserves a Nobel prize as well.Edit: misspelled medal.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 03:09:16 am
content: Quote from: miguelvp on January 24, 2016, 03:07:19 amOn which planet? Not this planet, certainly.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 03:13:21 am
content: Quote from: IanB on January 24, 2016, 03:09:16 amMaybe there is a more even play field in other countries?I do really want to know, maybe I move thereEdit: so please, do tell.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 03:25:52 am
content: Come on, this is America. 30 developed countries signed the 1998 Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services.. with its standstill clause,https://www.google.com/search?q=GATS+standstill&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8So we can do nothing of the sort, only dismember existing programs, SO - in short, it would be FTA-illegal to give people anything - anything which is being sold by a corporation- has been since the late 1990s,For the government to compete with the businesses entitled to service that market - to give people something would adversely effect banks profits. That would beindirect expropriation.QuoteAs I said, that likely has been FTA-illegal since the late 90s, 1998 to be exact. Anything the government does has to support the efforts of banks to make money.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 08:34:13 am
content: [quote author=cdev link=topic=61680.msg849347#msg8.. what if the next generation doesn't? If the only reason to educate people was for them to make you rich, right? Suppose the need for 6.9 billion out of the 7 billion vanishes.Yet another 'if you will not give me you money and do want I want the world will end'. Take a number and stand in line.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 02:28:15 pm
content: What I am saying is that we need to think long and hard about the implications of technology for our fuuture and get beyond the arguments you're making, globally.I think it will be natural, because nobody will be happy, in that situation. Thats why we're seeing the FTAs, which are nothing less than a global coup, now. They are a preemptive attack on the future world.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 02:35:38 pm
content: QuoteNorth Korea, where everyone is absolutely equally poor, other than those who are more equal.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 03:31:20 pm
content: North Korea is by far one of the most unequal places on Earth. (Example:http://webtv.un.org/search/commission-of-inquiry-on-human-rights-in-the-dprk-seoul-public-hearing-day-2-am-21-august/2668611256001)

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 05:48:30 pm
content: cdev, you're being trolled.The tactic of equating any questioning of unrestrained global corporate power with communism is employed only by the weak minded or those trying to end a reasoned discussion. Since no one here is weak minded I think it's the latter.The irony is that if the neoliberal globalists have their way, entrepreneurs and small businesses, the bedrock of capitalism, will be crushed. Neoliberalism is just another form of totalitarianism (on a global scale) that seeks to enrich the few at the expense of the many - not unlike state communism.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 06:47:03 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on January 24, 2016, 05:48:30 pmhttp://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_ridicule.htmhttp://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/strawman.htmhttp://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/false_dilemma.htmhttp://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_fear.htmAlmost broke my faldar.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 06:59:58 pm
content: zapta, read this, you'll see what the barriers being erected against fiscal responsibility are in health care, (and other areas like education and banking services) - where they originated, and if you're astute, how its unsustainable.http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.405.5725&rep=rep1&type=pdfAsk Canadian conservatives (real ones, not the online sock puppets) and they'll tell you they wouldn't replace their health care with the US"system" under any conditions In the US, health insurance equivalent to the Canadian system in terms of providing needed medical care, WHEN it is needed, would cost a couple in their 50s more than $50,000 a year, if they could even get it. Thats more than some people make.All the Republicans and unfortunately, also Hillary Clinton, because she is stuck with the system she helped establish here, want to do is continue digging our country deeper into an ideologically driven healthcare hole.Doctors are leaving the field like crazy (or moving north to Canada) because its emotionally exhausting, and very expensive in terms of staff, to battle insurance companies for every procedure.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 07:51:12 pm
content: For anyone interested in exploring the underlying issues here (as opposed to trolling and distractions) and understanding what Neoliberal Globalization actually means for entrepreneurs, small businesses, education and health carethis is a good introductionBold emphasis mine:QuoteThe WTO, GATS, TPP, etc are the weapons being used in the war against entrepreneurs, small businesses, and those who would have any public involvement in health care or education.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 07:56:53 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on January 24, 2016, 06:59:58 pmcdev, around here a ~$500/month will get you very good coverage, less than rent or food.The difference is in the view of the core role of the government (that is, other people). Is it role to provide us our needs (food, shelter, healthcare insurance, cell phones, salaries, ..) or just to protect our personal liberty. Everything else is derived from that. In my view, our government is well into feature crip territory to a point that it has negative effect on our personal liberty.Since it's a matter of axioms and basic values, discussion is pretty much futile, same as a discussion between believers and atheists.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 08:10:07 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on January 24, 2016, 07:51:12 pmI know a few small enterprises that won big, for example Apple, Facebook, Oracle, Amazon, Cisco, and Microsoft.As usual, success is demonized.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 08:18:52 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 24, 2016, 07:56:53 pmWhat to do for those whose full time work provides them an income of $1000 per month? $500 per month only provides good coverage for healthy young people. What to do for the rest of the population?The health care systems in this country is terribly broken and has been for several decades. While there are differences of opinion in what the solution is very few would argue that its current state is ok. Are you saying it is?QuoteI don't think it is governments role to provide any of those things.QuoteI 100% agree that government should protectpersonalliberty. That includes protection from large corporate abuse of my liberty.QuoteAgain - I agree.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 08:21:15 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 24, 2016, 08:10:07 pmStrawman. No on is demonizing success. The issue is does success then give a corporation the right to suppress competitors? To deprive them of their liberty? And to use governments and international law to codify that right? How does that square with protecting personal liberty?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 08:27:20 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on January 24, 2016, 08:18:52 pmYou are so much to the left that you underflowed to the right.;-)Anyway, this kind of discussion between people with different axioms seldom come to a conclusion.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 09:34:51 pm
content: QuoteThat tells you how terrible Obamacare is. It tells you nothing about how great the Canadian care system is.QuoteIt could cost that much, not sure if it would cost that much.My healthcare is entirely free. I am sure you can find plenty of people paying north of $50K to get the equivalent care in Canada. That fact does not mean that the canadian healthcare system sucks, or the US care system is superb.If you get a gazillion of such anecdotes, however, you may have a case.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 10:45:27 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 24, 2016, 07:56:53 pmWhat's the excess?Does it cover everything or will they try to wriggle out of any claims?Is that for a 21 year old or 61 year old? Even for a healthy young person, that sounds like a complete rip off.QuoteThere is a valid debate about what the state should provide. What do you think the state should provide?If free healthcare is so bad, then perhaps free education is too. Perhaps parents should have to pay for their children to go to school? And if parents don't want their children to be educated, then maybe the state should not interfere with their decision not to educate their children?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 11:16:47 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on January 24, 2016, 10:45:27 pmThat's an easy one. On one hand, it should protect our liberties (police, military, etc), on the other hand it should not provide 'free' healthcare, food, housing, cellphones, monthly payments and entertainment). Since it's a continum, there are various shades of gray in between.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 11:36:47 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 24, 2016, 11:16:47 pmI notice you didn't comment on the part about free education.So do you think the state should provide education? If so, then why?

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 11:40:01 pm
content: The problem with these deals is they are designed to trap both other countries and us into spending more and more money. Once there is any change made, its "locked in" . By the time the election rolls around, its likely the options will all be locked down already. So even were Sanders to win, (he's the best candidate in decades to get this far) he likely, by then, wouldn't be able to do anything, except preside over a disaster forced on the country by this ideology.Thats the way things are being managed now. They don't want any risk of things not going their way.This is a Canadian NGO that has far better writing about trade issues than most other sources. But to read about GATS you have to go back at least several years. Thats not good because GATS is a big part of our current problems, at least, with health care.https://www.policyalternatives.ca/projects/trade-and-investment-research-projectCCPA has a publication called Divide and Conquer from around ten years ago, it is about FTAA a failed trade deal from around 2006. But the wish list has not changed that much, and that explanation of FTAA explains a lot about neoliberalism and services.CCPA also has a publication called Putting Health First that is specifically abut FTAs and the Canadian health care system, and most of it applies to other countries too. Another really good author on trade issues is Matthew Rimmer who is an Australian law professor. He's written two quite substantial critiques on them which can be found if you search on the phrase "Trojan Horse Clauses" - There is a lot on TPP in there.I think this is an issue that has nothing to do with the right vs. left dichotomy, its basically about the fact that we need to be able to have solutions that work. The system we have now is literally falling apart before our eyes, and thats because they are hell bent on keeping this tiered system in place despite its literally doubling the cost of health care and leaving people bankrupt when they get even a fairly treatable condition.Drugs are getting much more expensive very quickly here in the US, thats not going to be fixable if TPP passes. We're really doing a bad thing in that area. the most pissed off are the researchers in the drug industry. Seriously.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 11:41:44 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on January 24, 2016, 11:36:47 pmElementary education is how the field gets leveled.So yeah, free elementary education to cultivate the brightest to keep the country running and being competitive.So even if you are poor, you can get free college if you work hard at it and get out poverty.Too bad not many take advantage.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 11:45:20 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on January 24, 2016, 11:36:47 pmIt's a continum, like asking at what exact height a person becomes tall. Clearly not at 5' and clearly yes at 7'.Read my post again again about the shades of gray in between.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2016, 11:50:08 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 24, 2016, 11:45:20 pmI did read your post very carefully but nowhere did you make it clear where you draw the line and whether you supported the idea of free education or not.Please clarify: do you think free education is good or not? How about the fact that it's compulsory? Isn't that unnecessary state interference?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 12:18:07 am
content: Quote from: Hero999 on January 24, 2016, 11:50:08 pmWell, 'drawing the line' is an arbitrary over simplification of the continuum to black and white ,like asking how you draw the line for a number to be 'big'.Government provided education is more justified than government provided healthcare insurance and less justified than government provided police and military protection. Compulsory curriculum and education is even less justified than free education.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 12:49:06 am
content: Quote from: zapta on January 25, 2016, 12:18:07 amNo. Everybody should get good quality state healthcare, and be able to opt to go private if they wish. In the UK the advice of many consultants (including those that have private practices as well as working in the state system) isnotto be privately treated. When things go wrong in the private hospitals, they ring for an ambulace to take the patient to the better equipped state hospitals. That delay and relocation doesn't help the private patient.And that's completly ignoring the problem of botched private treatment (especially cosmetic surgery) causing extra work for the state system. The private "providers" just go out of business and dump their mistakes on the state.QuoteIf you don't havesomecompulsory elements, then you end up with some children being educated (and I use that word very loosely) in madrassahs and the equivalents in other religions. That's the UK experience of "free schools", and it is now causing alotof political heartache and real practical problems. A few clear cut repeated examples: girls only being allowed to sit at the back of classes and being excluded from some classes, teaching religious hatred of non-muslims, plus the obvious hatred of homosexuality.Be careful what you wsh for: you might get it.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 01:06:56 am
content: Zapta,Can't private entities do those things? Private security, etc. (/sarcasm)Unfortunately, thats where its going. All those groups are largely unaware their jobs are being targeted in the US, unlike Europe where they are protesting.. But many are protesting the wrong trade deal, which its advocates are happy to let them do.Quote from: zapta on January 24, 2016, 11:16:47 pm("service" includes any service in any sector "except services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority";and"(c) 'a service supplied in the exercise of governmental authority' means any service which is supplied neither on a commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more service suppliers.")Police is a large GROWING sector of the economy and the salaries of all public sector workers are seen as a subsidy to privileged domestic special interests standing in the way of progress, and any laws which restrict access to that market by global firms likely will be challenged asmore burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service..People will likely hire their own police just as many hire their own doctors today. (concierge medicine)

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 01:07:12 am
content: Quote from: zapta on January 25, 2016, 12:18:07 amIt's literally asking you where you are on an issue, you don't have to bring philosophy or greyness into it. You sound very much like a politician.If government provided education is justified but there is no fixed or compulsory curriculum what is the definition that fits "education"? Oh, I agree that parents should be able to teach their kids whatever they believe, and it's not reasonable to attempt to exclude extreme beliefs because that would be an unnecessary and impractical level of interference. But you have to have a minimum standard of say maths, language, computing, etc. of a certain specification are required for every child if you're going to support government provided education. So it makes no sense to say "no compulsory curriculum" whilst supporting government education.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 01:11:51 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on January 25, 2016, 12:49:06 amThat's a common theme in this forum, if we will not give up our liberties, all kind of catastrophes will happen. ;-)http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_fear.htm

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 01:21:37 am
content: Its already determined by the Article I:3 (b) and (c) test that education in any country that has some private education has to be privatized. thats the way it works. TiSA basically repeats the same definition and gives it teeth and its already being finalized in 52 countries.Seehttp://www.eua.be/activities-services/news/newsitem/15-02-05/EUA_Council_statement_on_TTIP_and_TISA.aspxhttp://www.eua.be/Libraries/publication/EUA_Statement_TTIP.pdf?sfvrsn=2http://www.eua.be/Libraries/higher-education/GATS_en.pdf?sfvrsn=0http://www.ifut.ie/content/etuce-trade-services-agreement-tisa-threat-quality-educationhttps://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ihe/article/download/7489/6684http://gu.friends-partners.org/Global_University/Global%20University%20System/List%20Distributions/2005/MTI1721_12-15-05/Barcelona%20II%20Nobel%20Meeting%20--%20Higher%20Education%20as%20a%20Public%20Good.pdfhttp://newsclick.in/international/wtogats-plans-make-education-tradable-commodity-what%E2%80%99s-nexthttp://www.ei-ie.org/en/news/news_details/2798https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/higher-education-becomes-a-globally-traded-commodity-as-demand-soars/412629.articlehttp://www.aisa.in/publication/upas-educational-reforms-myths-and-reality/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/news/National-convention-against-higher-education-offer-to-WTO-GATS/articleshow/50059201.cmshttp://thewire.in/2015/12/14/its-not-wise-to-trade-in-higher-education-17295/http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-07-11/news/64308981_1_general-agreement-education-sector-service-chargeshttps://bctf.ca/SocialJustice.aspx?id=6164http://www.jstor.org/stable/25124032http://thecompanion.in/fight-against-inclusion-of-higher-education-in-wto/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228190317_Trade_in_Education_Services_under_the_WTO_GATS_Regime_An_Indian_Outlookhttp://www.bris.ac.uk/education/people/academicStaff/edslr/publications/04slrhttp://aifrte.in/content/fight-wto-save-educationhttp://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/withdraw-offers-made-to-wto-on-higher-education-aifrte-urges-centre/article6591428.ecehttp://www.aifrte.in/withdraw-%E2%80%98offers%E2%80%99-given-wto-higher-educationWhen the EU says that public services will be preserved, they don't mean education unless there are NO, meaning no at all private schools in that country. Otherwise their state owned monopolies would be framed as "unfairly competing" with the "rightful owners" of the market, the educational brands, don't they deserve a right to sell educational services without interference by governments?Same thing with health insurance. Something like 600,000 people are involved in the health insurance industry in the United States of America, and only 100,000 Americans die in hospitals each year because they had inadequate health insurance and came in too late. Which of those two do you think spends more on campaign contributions?US policy is pro business. State owned enterprises like schools and hospitals as well as laws like minimum wage and anti-discrimination laws are alleged to be discriminating against corporations, as well as trade distorting, as subsidies keeping out providers who would really want to do those jobs, quite probably at a fraction of the cost they are done for today. Huge multinational firms like Serco, have basically taken over certain service sectors. they hire millions of people from developing countries, and bid on contracts and win.Same thing with health care financial services . This is commonly misunderstood. If any money is involved anywhere - it is not a public service, its fate is already decided.SeeInterpretation of Article I, Section 3 (b) and (c) of GATS:http://www.ciel.org/Publications/PublicServicesScope.pdfWill this 20 year old GATS definition rule the new agreements? Yes, thats clear. Look at the vest first few lines in here:http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6891-2013-ADD-1-DCL-1/en/pdf------------This publication- Divide and Conquer, does a decent job of explaining competition policy.. (CCPA's other pubs are really good too, for example, search on GATS at site:policyalternatives.ca )https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National_Office_Pubs/2005/divide_and_conquer.pdf

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 01:24:41 am
content: Nobody asked you. Or me. They don't have to.The URAA was enacted in 1995. Now its all on autopilot.Quote from: zapta on January 25, 2016, 01:11:51 am

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 01:31:58 am
content: QuoteFree education is great.So is free apartment, free lunch, free beer, free BMW, free bicycles, free gym membership, free wife, free kids, free bank accounts, free maids, free cable tv, free ......Why don't we have it all free?Democracy isn't about three wolfs voting to eat that lamb. It is about protecting that lamb from mobs demanding free something.Why cannot you and people like you congregate together and organize a United States of Free Education, if that's your calling. Or European Union of Free Lunch? or any permutation of that?Just leave the other people out of it. Just as much right as you do to be associated with like-minded people, you have to respect other people's rights of not being associated with you.That's all we are asking: we don't want your free stuff, and we certainly don't want to pay for your free stuff.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 01:37:56 am
content: Quote from: zapta on January 24, 2016, 08:27:20 pmPersonal liberty is equally valued by those on the left and the right of the political spectrum. It's just that some on the right presume to own the idea and wear it on their shirtsleeves - using it to justify anything and everything. Political tribalism takes over on both sides and reasoned discussion and common sense solutions get lost in the blood lust effort for one side to "win"It's just one more example why the whole left - right divide is artificial and now only serves to keep the public distracted from the real power struggle that is occurring between the serfs (i.e. us) and their corporate and bought and paid for goverment masters.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 01:43:10 am
content: Quote from: zapta on January 25, 2016, 01:11:51 amThere are other common themes. In general Europeans trust their elected representatives more than corporations. In the US it tends to be the opposite.Can someone please enlighten me why I should trust someone where I, to some degree, "give/take their job" more than someone that I have absolutely no control over?

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 01:54:09 am
content: Dannyf, you already won, in 1995,Congratulations!Education and health care and police, and prisons, and housing, and military, and water and everything else with almost no exceptions, are in the process, of, (and have been for 20 years),are being subjected to "progressive liberalisation", no matter what people vote for.This shows what I mean.http://www.maine.gov/legis/opla/ctpchlthcaresub.pdfthe state of Maine tried to set up a state run health care program - read what happened.You won.Quote from: dannyf on January 25, 2016, 01:31:58 am

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 01:55:53 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on January 25, 2016, 12:49:06 am"Quality state healthcare" = definition of an oxymoron.Government/state has never been known to do anything of quality or with good efficiency.Best thing to happen to healthcare will be when we get ride of the middle-man. No third-party payer. Just between the patient and the care giver so cost actually get put back into the cost-benefit equation.People need to become more self-sufficient. Save for a rainy day. In case some out-sized cost event occur, catastrophic health coverage (those with $5,000 or $10,000 deductible) would defuse the cost. That is what insurance is suppose to be - something to cover unexpected major expense like an accident. Insurance is not for something that is planned, periodical, or merely for vanity.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 02:01:58 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on January 25, 2016, 12:49:06 amThe entire concept of health "insurance" is ludicrous and simply a historical relic of what evolved in the US following WWII.Insurance is for things that may or may not happen (ie fire, flood, accidents). Everyone - except the few who die unexpectedly at a young age in an accident - eventually gets sick and needs healthcare. Most in this country spend large amounts of their time in the last decades of their life in doctors offices and in and out of hospitals.The free market is the best solution toalmosteverything - but their are exceptions and health care is one of them. The health care consumer has no ability to make informed choices or choose their care based on cost and effectiveness.There is no such thing as "free healthcare". Healthcare is paid for one way or the other. We in the US pay for our medicare coverage for those over 65 and the disabled. The goverment administers it. Even among the most politically conservative elderly in this country, medicare is very popular. Most of my patients are retirees on medicare. Some have supplementary insurance but even those cry "keep your government hands of my medicare" when they hear of efforts by some to dismantle it.The healthcare system in the US has been broken for decades. We spend much more than any other developed country yet our outcomes are worse than any of them.The problems with the system have nothing to do with "Obamacare" Obamacare was never going to fix the fundamental problems with healthcare in the US. It was a give away to big pharma and the insurance companies- a half ass'd attempt to fix some things while still appeasing the pharmaceutical and insurance lobbies. It has some small positives and some small negatives - but net - net it does nothing to address the fundamental problems in the system. But it has become a political football with everything wrong with healthcare blamed on Obamacare - even though most of the problems cited existed long before it came to be. On the other side, its supporters are so caught up in their own political gamesmanship that they fail to see that in the end it has fixed nothing important.It comes back to my earlier post - the political rancor, gamesmanship and bickering between Dems and Repubs or "left" and "right" - just prevent any reasoned discussion or common sense solutions. Meanwhile the pharmaceutical and insurance companies milk the cow.

author: Alexei.Polkhanov
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 02:07:31 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on January 25, 2016, 01:43:10 amThat always puzzled me. Corporations are large, medium, small size business entities that anyone can relate to and they are vulnerable because they depend on people paying them for their products and services and they have to compete for resources like all of us instead of wasting tax money that they took from me at gunpoint.Corporations are more vulnerable, more real, practical, more understandable and easier to relate to than government. In other words I always think about governments like "them", like "those bad guys on opposite side", where corporations no matter how evil they are still one of "us", my strange weird family, I can hate corporations but I AM A CORPORATION.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 02:13:41 am
content: Health insurance is a financial service and its my understanding that due to the signing of this international agreement in 1995, and the annex to it in 1998, as well as putatively international trade being involved, its subject to a "standstill" and numerous other conditions and limitations, as soon as a single foreign provider from a trading partner, enters a market.Link:http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.405.5725&rep=rep1&type=pdf

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 02:15:24 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on January 25, 2016, 01:55:53 amThe term "state healthcare" can mean a lot of different things, but the facts are that the countries with the best healthcare have systems that are government administered.Seehereandhere.Note despite our poor ranking, we spend much, much more per capita than the countries ranked better than us.There are many variations better healthcare systems.This documentarygives a good overview of some of them.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 02:26:55 am
content: Yes, that was a really good documentary. Too good. Too true. So PBS came under a LOT of pressure to make a sequel that extolled "the good things about corporate medicine". Or something like that.here is the problem, big chunks of the economy are shrinking and there is a perception that healthcare has to make up the slack by making more and more money from people who don't have it. "The one bright spot in a dismal economy" is how I heard it put.Also, just as cynically, there is a perception in certain circles that it no longer makes sense to give people an education "because it only gives people unrealistic expectations".But back to healthcare...With healthcare being such an important thing for people, literally making the difference between life and death, its seen as a business opportunity too important to waste by allowing people to get it without paying as much as can possibly be extracted from them. Look at the new pricing schemes for drugs,basing them on the severity of the disease and availability of other treatments, and not on their cost, AT ALL.See"MARKET SPIRAL PRICING OF CANCER DRUGS":http://www.pharmamyths.net/_market_spiral_pricing_of_cancer_drugs__120860.htmAlso, one has to see the phenomenon of "drive by doctoring" (see After Surgery, Surprise $117,000 Medical Bill From Doctor He Didn’t Know :http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/us/drive-by-doctoring-surprise-medical-bills.html) as encouragedbecause it discourages poor people from seeking carein an amount inversely proportionate to income.Which ends up making the healthcare eventually rendered more expensive- the earlier you go to the doctor, the less expensive everything is.(that is no reason for only rendering preventative, not curative care, but rationalization because of greed is extremely powerful and our current system encourages the kind of thinking that leads to bad places, like some would like to use the fact that curative care costs more to dump it, use it to justify denying curative (more costly) care to treatable sick people..)

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 02:32:39 am
content: Quote from: Alexei.Polkhanov on January 25, 2016, 02:07:31 amPerhaps in Europe, people are glad they have a job and the companies don't really care about them or value them since employees are seen as replaceable.In here companies do value their employees and know that the company is really what the employees make of it, so we are treated and valued more.In Europe they need governments to put companies on check, in here we need companies to put government on check.But that's jut a thought, not even a theoryWell, let's call it an educated guess since after all I was born and raised in Europe.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 02:33:15 am
content: Speaking as a Canadian, changes in the US hit us (in both positively and negatively). Higher minimum wage, drug prices, infrastructure rebuilds in the U.S. are all things that alter out way of life.As it happens I had a major infection a couple months ago, spent a week in hospital and had excellent treatment. No cost, no complaints.This document gives a fairly good description of the differences between the US and Canadian (single payer) system.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_healthcare_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 03:18:36 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on January 25, 2016, 12:49:06 amNo, that doesnt work, you cant have that and have it work because then it has to charge money, which makes the healthcare more expensive, also the providers all have to have much larger staffs, also, the saying no increases the cost of healthcare because to save a few hundred bucks now, people end up being much sicker by the time they "present" with a problem, leading to much higher costs. Its literally much cheaper to just give everybody best possible quality healthcare for free than to charge money. Study after study shows that. (Thats another thing they are trying to cover up.)Also, to be FTA legal healthcare or education has to be completely noncommercial. Meaning no money. Not a little bit of money, NO money.Because of the way GATS and now TiSA are structured, if you charge for some services, and allow private providers to offer the same services in competition, a ratchet snaps shut and it becomes a one way street (visualize a fish trap sort of street) to privatization.It can no longer be free, because that would be unfairly competing with the alleged "rightful owners" of the market. Thats what's happening now to the UK.Canada on the other hand, has so far managed to avoid it. But its very hard. See "Putting Health First" from CCPA for more on that.http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National_Office_Pubs/putting_health_first.pdfSuppose a country wants out. They have to buy their freedom, and its very expensive. In the case of the US, the cost would likely be the biggest cost ever, even bigger than the 50 billion fine against Russia in a similar case (under ISDS rules) for "breaking" an unratified energy treaty (The Yukos case).To escape the obligation, the country and the injured party have to agree on compensation, in advance, which does not buy anything except freedom from insurance lock in, its an amount proportionate to the size of the market and future profits, which could exceed the whole GNP for the country for a number of years- its completely up to the corporations (or with GATS, the other member nation-state whose businesses claim to be impacted), how much they want to charge, basically its punitive compensation for this sudden entitlement, their lost expected profits! Shades of the feudal system.Eventually, to become compliant with neoliberal ideology, public healthcare must get transformed into a means-tested (privately managed) low actuarial value insurance of last resort for the poor and destitute.. (only people who have no income, who could not pay for it) Anything else is trade distorting.Also, once a right is given to a multinational corporation, to privatize a formerly public system, something that can happen invisibly because of so called "standstill" "ratchet" and "rollback" clauses, it is "captured", it becomes carved in stone for all eternity. Irreversible. See what happened to the Slovak Republic after just a few years under private insurance when they voted to change back to public! - Must see...Seehttp://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw3207.pdf- starting at Page 13 - for a good example of what I mean..So elections, even landslide elections, where single payer is a main campaign promise, dont change anything.. The country is not allowed by the special corporate court to switch away from private insurance- We should realize that! We could vote for a President hoping to be freed of health insurance, and instead the country could be buried under the largest debt in existence, (a similar thing could also happen with natural gas, energy)-----Another case (Eastern Sugar v. the Czech Republic ) shows that even the total dissolution of a previous country does not end an obligation acquired under a pre-dissolution trade deal..Some other links...Seehttp://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/resource/gats-privatisation-and-healthhttp://www.iatp.org/files/Trading_Health_Care_Away_GATS_Public_Services_.htmhttp://www.citizen.org/documents/Threats_to_Health_Care_Policy.pdfHowever, they dont tell people that. Also, public healthcare is in study after study, much more able to deliver quality care at lower cost. the problem is, in healthcare, competition increases, not decreases costs and competition leads to unsustaiable increases in prices.Healthcare is a paradox because of the high cost of medical equipment, like imaging equipment, (less so now than in the past, you can buy an MRI machine for a LOT less now than it costs only a few years ago, but prices have not fallen- at all!)The fact that competition in healthcare increases not decreases prices is just one of dozens of things that were misrepresented in 2007-2008.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 04:53:41 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on January 25, 2016, 01:43:10 amI can switch the car in our garage tomorrow. I cannot switch the guy in the white house. That's one difference.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 09:35:19 am
content: Quote from: zapta on January 25, 2016, 04:53:41 amI can switch cars too just as fast, so that isn't a difference. I can also change governments faster than I can change water supplier, or bus/train company, or ISP etc etc.Much more importantly, can you switch your healthcare provider or healthcare insurance company or hospital during an emergency? Most people can't.Did you leave your healthcare details at home by mistake? If so, where will the ambulance take you and what will be the quality of care? (Traditionally in the US it is to the charity hospital where they do the minimum to ensure you don't die on their watch.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 09:41:40 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on January 25, 2016, 01:55:53 amMaybe in the US, to its shame.In the UK and Europe it is the opposite. It is frequently observed that the NHS (National Health Service) is the nearest thing we have to a religion in the UK - with good reason. Bonus: it costs me about 1/3 to 1/10 of what I would have to pay in the US, depending on my age.And if I wish, I can "go private" for all or part of a ccourse of treatment. But most consultants say that is neither necessary nor preferable - including those consultants that do both private and NHS work. Thelatesttime I heard that statement was in November, w.r.t. a serious kidney operation.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 09:53:02 am
content: Quote from: cdev on January 25, 2016, 03:18:36 amNo; come to the UK and see how public+private works. Everything is "free at the point of delivery" (cosmetic surgery and the like accepted), where "free" means from taxation at 1/3 to 1/10 of the cost in the US, depending on age. But you can pay for private treatment if you wish.QuoteYes, there we are in violent agreement.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 11:29:38 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on January 25, 2016, 09:35:19 amYou must be kidding.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 11:43:00 am
content: Quote from: zapta on January 25, 2016, 12:18:07 amWhy is government education more important than healthcare? That's very debatable.I don't have any children. I pay my taxes so why should I have to pay for other people's children to go to school? If someone decides to have children they shouldn't expect me to pay for them to be educated. They aren't my problem.On the other hand, it's very likely I will need healthcare at some stage, unless I die very quickly due to an accident or am murdered. One day I will fall ill and will need treatment. It would be better if all the taxes taken from me to pay for other people's children should be used to pay for healthcare which we will all probably need at some point.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 12:20:08 pm
content: "Why is government education more important than healthcare? That's very debatable"The fact it is debatable means things should be done by peoples preference.In the US, you at least have the option to move to a district where the public schools can provide education that fits you, or you can send your kids to private schools.Having said that, I am not a supporter of government provided education. I prefer a system where local government sets education standard (minimum) and provide financial support to any kids who attend schools whose criteria meet that standard.Education is the most effextive anti poverty mechanism we have. And human capital is the most precious resources we have so I can support a tax payer funded education.The notion of a locally controlled education also means that if you wish, you and your friend can get together and stripe free education from your school district. You just need to live with that consequences.The most offensive part of any discussion on big government is that the liberal always tell us how great those free programs are for us but they don't allow us to refuse it and refuse funding it.And sometimes it is so great they don't even commit their family to it: just observe Obama's refusal to put her family under obama care.That should tell all you need to know about those programs.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 12:27:55 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 25, 2016, 11:29:38 amDepending on your insurance you need to make sure the ambulance driver takes you to the correct hospital. If the hospital you go to is "out of network" and the insurance provider has higher deductibles or copays for out-of-network hospitals, that could cost you a lot of money.I'm not sure how you're supposed to do that when you're bleeding out and barely conscious after a serious car accident though. I'd guess the ambulance would just take you to the nearest hospital.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 12:59:25 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 25, 2016, 12:20:08 pmThe problem going by personal preferences would be you'd have to also accommodate those who think "I don't drive, only drivers should pay for public roads. I don't use the police, only victims of crime should pay for the police. I have no interest in going to war or national defence, only those wanting to fight should pay for the armed forces..."The extra bureaucracy needed to get everyone's wishes, collect taxes based on them, distribute those funds based on those wishes, and make sure anyone who doesn't want to pay for public roads never rides a pushbike on it, those who don't want to pay for pavements because they drive never walk on them, didn't want to pay for the police isn't assisted by them ever etc, etc would be monumentally massive and expensive.And to try to get this post up to level of the reductiones ad absurdum in this thread everything is debatable. There're people debating that the worlds flat.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 01:00:57 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on January 25, 2016, 11:43:00 am

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 02:36:06 pm
content: It was recently discovered that putting people into suspended animation is as simple as feeding them a dilute mixture of air and H2S, hydrogen sulphide, and lowering the temperature.So perhaps we will have another option for the wounded, that's not trade distorting like public healthcare, so it will be FTA-legal everywhere.Basically, put them into suspended animation until their families and attorney get their payment details sorted out, hopefully before their throw away date.Kind of like in the film,"Sleeper" (one of my favorites, still)

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 02:49:46 pm
content: (SNARK)Prisons are much more profitable than schools, one body in prison will make a corporation as much as $80-100k / year while a school - until services liberalisation - globalization, is almost a total waste because in the past that money went mostly to unionized employees.Also, education "only gives people unrealistic expectations" in a world where there will be few if any jobs (besides prostitution and thuggery) for the less educated.The future of education is clearly tiers. I think Aldous Huxley predictions on that were likely accurate on the new caste system's structure, seehttp://press.endocrine.org/doi/10.1210/jc.2014-4324for how it might be done.(/SNARK)

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 05:20:56 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 25, 2016, 12:20:08 pmThat statement just demonstrates a political motivation and/or ignorance of our healthcare system."Obamacare" is not a separate health system one can choose or not choose to "put your family under" - no more than one could choose or not choose to participate in "Reaganomics".Obamacare is simply a (inadequate and flawed IMO) set of reforms to the currently deeply flawed system. In fact one of those reforms is allowing adult children to stay under their parents health plan until age 26. So in that sense Obama's daughters are covered under Obamacare.The whole idea that one should not have to contribute to anything in society that one does not immediately and directly benefit from is short sighted and ultimately self destructive IMO. One could say it is selfish but in fact the truth is that contributing to efforts aimed at promoting the general health and well being, security and life quality of all in your society is ultimately in ones self interest since everyone benefits from this - even the most selfish. There are lots of examples of countries where those contributions do not happen and the consequences are apparent. The parameters, methods and extent of that contribution are open to debate of course and part of a healthy democracy is debating and deciding what those are.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 05:53:14 pm
content: "The future of education is clearly tiers"Absolutely, as it is today. Communities should have the right to determine what education they want for their kids.That points to a huge flaw in our healthcare system today: it is all bmw and no chevy.I'm the biggest supporter this is to universal healthcare and a single payer system, except that I want to universal care to stand on its own financially and to provide bare minimum care, with serevely constrained benefit (terrible care).If you want better care, you got to work for it.I am also a big supporter of "government Inc" where everyone is guaranteed a job, as a pre-requesite to welfare payments, it can be stamping out that license plate, or cleaning up the highway, or washing the walls at an airport. Anything you want from the taxpayers, you have to work for it.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 06:30:40 pm
content: QuoteWell, if they expect wages to fall and things like drug prices and insurance premiums and out of pocket costs all to keep rising, I can see how many of the current inhabitants of most of the country - The 95% - middle class people likely will be put between a rock and a hard place on taxes for a period of time before their wages also vanish, due to services liberalisation sucking the middle out of the job market-...and something will likely have to go, Although in the final analysis it will probably be (a great many people) forced to move to - wherever the can live more cheaply- . (also - as energy - such as natural gas is being deregulated in the TTIP, the suddenly rising cost of electricity and natural gas as its exported for the first time since the 1970s, "until its gone" may make many communities vulnerable to high heating costs even if the weather never turns cold again. (Air conditioning is expensive too, and some areas may become unsafe to live in without it if humidity, heat and the dew point interact in the wrong ways. Nobody knows but its unwise to export the heating fuel that most of the country depends on so recklessly, IMHO, even if that is neoliberal ideology.)Destroying communities to "save" them from insufficiant insulation? :I suspect it may be argued that because of the "unexpected" sudden jump in energy prices due to export deregulation, hundreds of thousands of postwar apartment buildings (where most city dwellers in many US cities dwell) are suddenly deemed "too expensive to heat" and "must be" torn down and replaced with million dollar condos) To save them from having to pay high energy prices or convert to coal or wood (which cause so many lung problems they will probably be banned) But before that there will definitely be a big push to turn people against public education as a prelude to eliminating it."Job Creation":Unfortunately, politicians aggressively maintain a fiction that they are trying just SO very hard to create jobs (even as they fall over backwards to satisfy the demands of corporations for more tax breaks and trade deal based services schemes to undermine real job creation) politicians wont argue - it can't be argued that "it only gives people (who would otherwise sink into a sort of conveniently self destructive apathetic despair) "unrealistic expectations" of future employment, even if that is what they are thinking.Magnet for vanishing middle level wealthy?:I can see that the US is trying to position itself as a magnet for the world's semi-wealthy.Its typical of narcissists that they always seek new "friends" new sources of narcissistic supply, as they burn out those close to them. Perhaps we now have a totally narcissistic leadership?Here is more good substantiative material on single payer than other pages I know of:This paper is exceptionally informative.http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.405.5725&rep=rep1&type=pdf)The media is really bad on single payer. Basically they drop any story that mentions it, like a hot potato. Ive heard it said that they are sick of getting letters to the editor supporting it when they do run stories. So dannyf, you are not representative of the general public on this. Nor do you seem to know what single payer is. Single payer means just one payer, so if it was crappy, that would mean everybody in the entire country would get crappy health care, unless they left. On the other hand, if it was good, we would have the healthcare we're paying for already. SeeWoolhandler, et al. “Paying for National Health Insurance — And Not Getting It,” Health Affairs 21(4); July/Aug. 2002.http://www.pnhp.org/publications/payingnotgetting.pdfMore information- The following papers are all linked at the original Source URL:http://www.pnhp.org/resources/pnhp-research-the-case-for-a-national-health-program1. Administrative costs consume 31 percent of US health spending, most of it unnecessary.Woolhandler, et al “Costs of Health Administration in the U.S. and Canada,” NEJM 349(Sept. 21, 2003.2. Medical bills contribute to half of all personal bankruptcies. Three-fourths of those bankrupted had health insurance at the time they got sick or injured.“Illness and Injury as Contributors to Bankruptcy,” Himmelstein et al, Health Affairs Web Exclusive, February 2, 2005.“Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study,” Himmelstein, D.U., Thorne, D., Warren, E., Woolhandler, S. (2009), Am J Med, 122, 741-746.“Medical Bankruptcy Fact Sheet,” Himmelstein, D.U., Thorne, D., Warren, E., Woolhandler, S. (2009).“Medical Bankruptcy Q&A,” Himmelstein, D.U., Thorne, D., Warren, E., Woolhandler, S. (2009).3. Taxes already pay for more than 60 percent of US health spending. Americans pay the highest health care taxes in the world. We pay for national health insurance, but don’t get it.Woolhandler, et al. “Paying for National Health Insurance — And Not Getting It,” Health Affairs 21(4); July/Aug. 2002.4. Despite spending far less per capita for health care, Canadians are healthier and have better measures of access to health care than Americans.Lasser et al. “Access to Care, Health Status, and Health Disparities in the United States and Canada: Results of a Cross-National Population-Based Survey,” American Journal of Public Health; July 2006, Vol 96, No. 7.5. Business pays less than 20 percent of our nation’s health bill. It is a misnomer that our health system is “privately financed” (60 percent is paid by taxes and the remaining 20 percent is out-of-pocket payments).Carrasquillo et al. “A Reappraisal of Private Employers’ Role in Providing Health Insurance,” NEJM 340:109-114; January 14, 1999.6. For-profit, investor-owned hospitals1-4, HMOs,5 nursing homes6,7 and home health care agencies8 have higher costs and score lower on most measures of quality than their non-profit counterparts.Himmelstein, D and Woolhandler, S "The high costs of for-profit care," Commentary, Can. Med. Assoc. J., June 8, 2004Devereaux, PJ “Payments at For-Profit and Non-Profit Hospitals,” Can. Med. Assoc. J., Jun 2004; 170Devereaux, PJ “Mortality Rates of For-Profit and Non-Profit Hospitals,” Can. Med. Assoc. J, May 2002; 166Himmelstein, et al “Costs of Care and Admin. At For-Profit and Other Hospitals in the U.S.” NEJM 336, 1997Himmelstein, et al “Quality of Care at Investor-Owned vs. Not-for-Profit HMOs” JAMA 282(2); July 14, 1999Harrington et al “Does Investor Ownership of Nursing Homes Compromise the Quality of Care?” American Journal of Public Health; Vol 91, No. 9, September 2001Comondore, et al “Quality of care in for-profit and not-for-profit nursing homes: systematic review and meta-analysis,” BMJ 2009;339:b2732-b2732Cabin W et al “For-Profit Medicare Home Health Agencies’ Costs Appear Higher And Quality Lower When Compared To Nonprofit Agencies,”Health Affairs, August 20147. Immigrants1 and emergency department visits2 by the uninsured are not the cause of high and rising health care costs. Immigrants also subsidize Medicare's trust fund.3Mohanty et al. “Health Care Expenditures of Immigrants in the United States: A Nationally Representative Analysis,” American Journal of Public Health; Vol 95, No. 8, August 2005Tyrance et al. “US Emergency Department Costs: No Emergency,” American Journal of Public Health; Vol 86, No. 11, November 1996Zallman et al, “Immigrants contributed an estimated $115.2 billion more to the Medicare Trust Fund than they took out in 2002-09,” Health Affairs, June 20138. 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance1. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002. The uninsured do not receive all the medical care they need — one-third of uninsured adults have chronic illness and don’t receive needed care2. Those most in need of preventive services are least likely to receive them.Wilper, et al “Health Insurance and Mortality in U.S. Adults,” American Journal of Public Health; Vol. 99, Issue 12, Dec 2009Wilper, et al “A National Study of Chronic Disease Prevalence and Access to Care in Uninsured U.S. Adults” Ann Intern Med, Aug 2008; 149: 170 - 176.9. The US could save enough on administrative costs1 (more than $350 billion annually) with a single-payer system2 to cover all of the uninsured.Woolhandler, et al “Costs of Health Administration in the U.S. and Canada,” NEJM 349(Sept 21, 2003“Proposal of the Physicians’ Working Group for Single-Payer National Health Insurance,” JAMA 290(6): Aug 30, 200310. Competition among investor-owned, for-profit entities has raised costs, reduced quality in the USHimmelstein DU, Woolhandler S. “Competition in a publicly funded healthcare system.” BMJ 2007;335:1126-1129 (1 December), doi:10.1136/bmj.39400.549502.94Hellander I, Himmelstein DU, Woolhandler S. “Medicare overpayments to private plans, 1985-2012: Shifting seniors to private plans has already cost Medicare US$282.6 billion.” International Journal of Health Services 2013;43(2):305–319. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/HS.43.2.g11. The Canadian single payer healthcare system produces better health outcomes1,2 with substantially lower administrative costs3,4 than the United States.Guyatt GH, et al. “A systematic review of studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the United States.” Open Medicine (2007); 1(1): E27-35.Lasser KE, Himmelstein DU, Woolhandler S. “Access to Care, Health Status, and Health Disparities in the United States and Canada: Results of a Cross-National Population-Based Survey.” American Journal of Public Health (July 2006); 96(7): 1300-1307.Himmelstein DU, Lewontin JP, Woolhandler S. “Who administers? Who cares? Medical administrative and clinical employment in the United States and Canada.” American Journal of Public Health. (1 Feb. 2006); 86(2):172-178.Woolhandler S, Campbell T, Himmelstein DU. “Cost of Health Care Administration in the United States and Canada.” New England Journal of Medicine. (21 August 2003); 349(.12. Computerized medical records1-3 and chronic disease management4 do not save money. The only way to slash administrative overhead5 and improve quality6,7 is with a single payer system.Woolhandler, et al. “Hope And Hype: Predicting The Impact Of Electronic Medical Records,” Health Affairs, September/October 2005; 24(5): 1121-1123.Himmelstein, et al “Hospital computing and the costs and quality of care: a national study,” Am J Med, Vol 123, Issue 1, Pages 40-46, Jan 2010McCormick, D, Bor, DH, Woolhandler, S, Himmelstein, DU, "Giving Office-Based Physicians Electronic Access To Patients’ Prior Imaging And Lab Results Did Not Deter Ordering Of Tests," Health Affairs, March 2012, 31(3): 488-496.Geyman, J “Disease Management: Panacea, Another False Hope, or Something in Between?,” Ann Fam Med 2007;5:257-260. DOI: 10.1370/afm.649.Woolhandler, et al “Costs of Health Administration in the U.S. and Canada,” NEJM 349(Sept. 21, 2003Schiff, et al “A Better Quality Alternative” JAMA, 272(10); Sept. 12 1994Schiff, et al “You Can’t Leap a Chasm in Two Jumps,” Public Health Reports 116, Sept / Oct 200113. Alternative proposals for “universal coverage” do not work. State health reforms over the past two decades have failed to reduce the number of uninsured1.Woolhandler, et al “State Health Reform Flatlines,” International Journal of Health Services, Volume 38, Number 3, Pages 585-592, 2008

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 09:54:22 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 25, 2016, 05:53:14 pmAll very well and good if they can afford it. But what about the big chunks of our country - concerning which, its seems already to have been decided, in "politically sensitive" discussions in Geneva, already decided, it seems, will be the losers in the globalization game?Seehttps://books.google.com/books?isbn=1782548963http://www.borderlex.eu/take-aways-last-weeks-tisa-talks/and so on..QuoteCould you elaborate a bit on that? Thats not my understanding at all. Americans actually utilize far less healthcare than other developed countries. Many mature, commonly used technologies are used less in the US, outside of some urban areas. Older technologies are often in use here, but cost more. For example, an MRI that costs less than $100 in Japan costs thousands of dollars here.Everything costs more. Even old generic drugs cost a huge amount more in the US.QuoteWhat youre describing doesnt even remotely resemble SINGLE payer. First thing, single payer has to be free, because otherwise, what could you do for people who didnt or more often couldnt pay. You would right there, have to set up a multitiered system and before you knew it we would be back to where we are now making everything incredibly more complicated than it needs to be, and making it so millions of people would be socked with bills at the monment they can least afford it. Also, people would lose their jobs if they got sick because their employers would be afraid tat their premiums would rise. People would get laid off at 39 or 49 0r 59 as a matter of routine for fiscal reasons.So my friend, single payer is emphatically not what you' were describing there.Also were you aware that ERISA Section 514 makes it so employer provided health care is demonstrably crippled due to a blanket Federal preemption of cases for issues like "failure to diagnose" serious illnesses (which is a big and growing problem under capitation-like schemes for paying "in-network" doctors.) Employers pay for health insurance but dont really get the quality they are paying for because of this big escape clasue, which represents basically a free get out of paying card to insurance companies. the result is that the federal government still ends up paying around 60% of the healthcare bills in this country. Even after Obamacare (which was supposed to shift the growing costs away from government and business onto the consumers of healthcare in a non-obvious way.)QuoteIs this what you mean?Do you see that as being a constructive use of millions of people's time, perhaps including yourself at some point? Wouldn't it make more sense to let them do something else with their time, (like learning new skills, maybe even electronics?) especially given that many people will likely live far out in the country and have no access to automobile transportation, it being outside of their means?Also, wont you expect many to argue, "why educate people if there are no jobs"?If we give up, on the majority of the nation, if Americans are forced to go elsewhere for an education, (for example, to germany which even educates Americans for free, in English) we as a country will have to live with the consequences of that decision, globally.---------Other countries are more than happy to take up the slack if we abandon the race by taking the path of least resistance and cannibalizing precious entry level technical jobs in order to get a brief period of high profits,

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 11:16:49 pm
content: "I don't have any children. I pay my taxes so why should I have to pay for other people's children to go to school? If someone decides to have children they shouldn't expect me to pay for them to be educated. They aren't my problem"So you find it objectionable to be forced to pay for a government service (education) that you don't need, yet you find it perfectly OK to force others to pay for another government service e (healthcare) they don't need.There is no better illustration of your hypocracy.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 11:50:38 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 25, 2016, 11:16:49 pmNo, nearly everyone will healthcare at some point: it's inevitable.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 11:58:58 pm
content: "No, nearly everyone will healthcare at some point: it's inevitable.""Nearly everyone will need healthcare" == not everyone will need healthcare.So do you still think it is perfectly fine to force others to purchase things they don't need, as long as you aren't on the receiving end of the stick?Do you actually think through what you write?However, I will give you some examples of things everyone definitely need: everyone eats, everyone drinks, everyone walks, everyone pees, everyone sleeps....Does that mean that governments should offer people free food, free water, free shoes, free diapers, free mattresses, .....Really, you should think it through.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 12:07:05 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 25, 2016, 11:58:58 pmI've thought it through very carefully. What should be publicly funded and what should not be is very open to debate.Some of the things you've listed is much more important than education and should arguably be provided for free.

author: Alexei.Polkhanov
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 12:14:29 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 25, 2016, 11:58:58 pmAlmost convincing, but not exactlyHealthcare is different - what chances that you will need $200,000 meal or $10,000 drink for dinner tonight to survive till tomorrow?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 12:27:37 am
content: Quote from: Alexei.Polkhanov on January 26, 2016, 12:14:29 amWell, you have the option to buy health insurance and pay monthly, less than food or rent.I am sure now your are convinced.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 12:40:15 am
content: Quote from: zapta on January 26, 2016, 12:27:37 amGreat if you're 20-30 years old, no prior history and no pre-existing conditions etc.Not so great if you're 50-60+, have some prior history of certain conditions or have actual conditions. Maybe you can't afford the insurance premiums or any policy has such large deductibles so as to be virtually useless. And if you're approaching that age you may not have a steady income.Also, how common is it for insurance providers to try and drop customers after they make a big claim? Like if you got cancer... would they drop you after the year's up? Or, they might try and find a way to void your policy... Perhaps you forgot that one instance of pins and needles? This is life insurance failing to pay out over a minor bit of undisclosed prior history, but I can easily see health insurance doing the same:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2247055/Family-cancer-victim-refused-life-insurance-payout-didnt-disclose-PINS-AND-NEEDLES.htmlSince the risk with medical costs is so high, although the average payment is low, I think there needs to either be a state mandated insurance policy that has minimum coverage and restrictions on what insurers can bundle into the risk assessment, or a universal single payer system. A single payer system is much simpler - less regulation - but suffers from potential government meddling and often acts as as political football.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 12:55:53 am
content: QuoteAnd the result of that careful thought process of yours is that it is absolutely wrong for others to force you to pay for their education but it is absolutely OK for you to force others to pay for your healthcare?QuoteBut a publicly funded education is a definite "no", but a publicly funded healthcare is a definite "yes", only because you don't need the former but you need the later?Quotethen, you should support a delayed implementation of publicly funded healthcare until everyone gets his/her free lunch, free drinks, free shoes, free mattresses, free diapers and free .... from our government?A discussion of publicly funded healthcare can only happen between folks wearing publicly funded diapers. No free diapers, no free healthcare,

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 01:10:27 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 26, 2016, 12:55:53 amLunch $20. Drinks $10. Shoes $30. Mattress $300. Diapers $25.Cancer treatment $200,000.Gee I wonder what the difference is???Ever wonder why Breaking Bad was set in the US?! It'd be a lot more boring if Walter White didn't have to cook meth to pay for his cancer treatment. On the NHS it would be free of charge, aside from a £7/month or so prescription...

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 01:35:18 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 26, 2016, 01:10:27 amNot even £7/month. Once you have cancer all prescription medications are free.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 02:20:43 am
content: here in the US we now have medicines where they cost $10,000 a dose. Or more.Medicines that have long been generic are suddenly soaring in price for no reason other than that they suddenly feel they can get away with it.Ironically, corporate greed may have something to do with causation. To give one example, a chemical that was originally investigated as a synthetic hormone, but dropped for that use was found to be useful in plastics manufacture and now is among the most heavily manufactured chemicals in the world. But it has serious endocrine disrupting side effects, causing all sorts of problems including some pretty strange ones like babies born with conflicting genitals. And these effects are something they have known from the beginning, almost a hundred years now. Its a liability nightmare.So you can't blame them for wanting to get rid of the complainers, the scientists who might be more aggressive in linking the cause and effect. Although engineering is not quite the same as pure science, engineers likely will become collateral damage in the war on the sciences, and the push to de-skill (Google Frederick Taylor) and reduce costs from wages in the skilled professions.I hate to say it but we're dealing with MAJOR corruption here and both parties are in deep as can be, Its a historically extreme situation. The wolves are guarding the henhouse. While they still can they are passing all these FTAs that all are supposed to last forever, once activated. So no amount of voting will extricate us.Not long ago, somebody at a major US NGO told me why they don't go into depth about the FTAs. Corporate funding. They are afraid they would lose their corporate funding.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 02:34:13 am
content: The irony is that the "free health care" those who argue against any sort of US single payer or national health system say they are opposed to - doesn't exist.When the uninsured diabetic who can't afford regular medical care ends up on dialysis or the uninsured person with heart disease who can't afford regular care ends up in the ER with a heart attack, or the uninsured healthy 25 year old gets in a auto accident and ends up needing emergency surgery, etc, etc ,etc - the costs of that care is paid by you and me. They are passed on in the form of higher medical bills, higher insurance premiums and higher taxes for us.What's more the resulting costs are much higher than they would have been if those people had timely care to prevent the more serious problems (auto accident example excluded). This is one of the reasons we spend so much more on health care in the US than other countries do yet have poorer outcomes.So those political idealogues who oppose any kind of single payer, government involved health care due to not wanting to contribute to anyone elses care are "cutting off their nose to spite their face" as the saying goes.

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 02:44:41 am
content: Electronic Engineering is the wrong queue to join when signing up to uni. Ophthalmology is where the money is.... the highest paying profession here.The problem with the EE profession is you hit a salary ceiling pretty quickly here in Australia. That level is small change to an experienced ophthalmologist, established dentist or rip-off plumber. In this country there is no where to go financially if you want to use you skills and high IQ to develop electronics or write code, short of going it alone. Some people chase the money by moving into management but they lose their core technical skills.Hence why there are so few EE's to be found past 50 years old here. Those who remain and put their profession above the desire for fame and fortune are the true believers.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 04:07:03 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on January 26, 2016, 02:34:13 amYou elevated the discussion to a new height. Good job.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 04:19:28 am
content: Also, even for the wealthy who can afford concierge medicine or live in medical staff, or even just always pay cash when they go to the doctor (the self insured) so they can get an honest, non-gag claused interaction, they still run into the lowering of medical standards in the US because medical testing is intentionally being changed at the demand of health insurance companies, to return less and less information and to register a positive condition indicating illness less and less frequently.There is a web site, kaiserpapers.org - no connection, that Ive seen which has some info on that.Anycase, while working in Silicon Valley, twice I saw Europeans who had come to the US to take what most people would describe as dream jobs in research, turn around and go right back home when they encountered US "cadillac" health care.. neither would say why. Family members illness and the proposed treatments while here."-----Quote from: mtdoc on January 26, 2016, 02:34:13 am

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 04:31:30 am
content: Easy fix,If you think there are a majority of like minded people, why don't you run for office and change things?Or form your own alternative to health insurance companies, others are doing it, not to much success yet but hey at least they are trying instead of complaining about it.As for the whole trade stuff, well we will see an increase of 0.5% income in the US for very little investment (relatively)Global economics are a very complicated thing, just trying to tame that beast to stop the rapid fluctuations of the global economy that we have been experiencing lately is not an effort in vain. But if you have a better solution, just spill it out instead of just complaining.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 05:11:05 am
content: Quote from: cdev on January 25, 2016, 09:54:22 pmHey, CDEV, why do you keep on bringing up these "discussion in Geneva..." I don't expect future presidents to be like the nutcase we got now.American President should not be running around saying he is a "global citizen". He is NOT elected to care for the world first and America second. He is elected to take care of America first and the world second. He is sworn to up hold and defend the U.S. Constitution, not the UN Charter.So when America elects a President that puts America first, whatever is decided in Geneva would be one favorable to America either now, the future, or both. Or it would be something Geneva adopt that we would not be a part of.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 05:17:04 am
content: So I'm not an American, so please don't shoot me.If I was to throw a bit of dynamite into this thread it would be the name "Bernie Sanders".

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 05:39:06 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on January 26, 2016, 05:11:05 amWell, you and I agree on this, but unfortunately, nobdy is consulting us, they don't care what we think or vote. Thats the whole idea. The things that effect the economic interests of corporations are being taken off the table. I dont mean that figuratively, either, I mean literally removed from the things we, meaning people we elect, can change. Things like healthcare are seen to be a sort of property of multinational corporations. If we cannot afford top quality healthcare, then we must buy something less expensive which might involve a policy that ships us overseas for care or treats us hre with doctors whose licenses come from africa or asia, and are recognized here because of a treaty. they may be paid minimum wage in the higher of the two countries or what they pay may be between them and their foreign employer.See this paper (http://www.cuts-geneva.org/pacteac/images/Documents/EAC%20Forum/Forum17/EAC%20Geneva%20Forum-%20WTO%20Note%2017.pdf) which gives a good overview of the chronology of the Geneva talks which started in 2006, (seehttp://www.maine.gov/legis/opla/ctpchlthcaresub.pdf) they are descended from a previous treaty which was signed in 1995. GATS. Mode Four was never able to get the traction the proponents of it wanted it to have because the LDCs didnt want to sacrifice their public healthcare and education for the magic beans of progressive liberalisation, without getting lots of jobs in exchange. With India having come back empty handed on Mode Four concessions from the Nairobi talks last month, there is a lot of discussion about Doha Development Agenda and whether the LDCs were fed a line to get them to play along for so long - with first the Uruguay Round, then the Doha business.For a good overview of the services trade generally, I recommend "Serving Whose interests by Jane Kelsey, the New Zealand globalization expert, its findable on the web. Read the chapter "Reading the GATS as ideology". You may find you agree with me- stranger things have happened.The reason I brought both up is that these low cost workers may end up becoming very popular here in the US, because (as one employer said ) "I can get four of him for what I pay for one of you"Here are the four modes of trade in services.:http://www.slideshare.net/GitanjaliMaria/four-modes-of-wtohttp://www.cuts-geneva.org/pacteac/images/Documents/EAC%20Forum/Forum22/EAC%20Geneva%20Forum-%20WTO%20Note%2022.pdfIn the final analysis, I think we're going to end up agreeing on this, if only because there is no other way for health care to work. They are making sure of that by eliminating the other ways, they are 30 years ahead of all of the rest of us, they saw this coming decades ago, and tried to future proof the big bucks but they didnt do anything half way, they want too much and its unsustainable.They want the world's money, and they want wages to fall because jobs are going to become so hard to get, that means they must be paid less and less, approaching zero? who knows. Supply and demand-The rationale for it is untested economic theories.. its claimed to be more efficient to let corporations move emloyees around at will, intracorporate travel, its not immigration and the work is temprary, no more than five years, it will be irreversible so the next president or congress wont have any control once its signed, corporations need stability now, the laws of physics are claimed to have changed because of the mobility of global capitalponzischeme.. (shhh)Some of these links may be relevant..http://www.wti.org/fileadmin/user_upload/nccr-trade.ch/wp4/publications/Working_Paper_20143.pdfhttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/workshop/join/2013/433722/EXPO-INTA_AT(2013)433722_EN.pdfhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw7P0RGZQxQ&feature=youtu.beThey want more and more money. But you cant do all of these things they are doing at the same time and not have society break.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 08:58:34 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 26, 2016, 12:55:53 amAll right, I'll come clean:I was playing devil's advocate.Of course I agree that the state should provide education and healthcare. To those in properly developed countries with a public health insurance system, the idea of abolishing it would probably invoke a similar reaction to the state school system being scrapped in the US.Spending money on education and health is not simply providing to freeloaders. It's an investment. Spend money on education and people will get better jobs and give back to the economy. Spend money on health and those who can't work due to illness will be able to return to work and have less time off sick.Society should also provide some kind of safety net and provide food, shelter etc. to those who fall on hard times. How much of this should come from the state and what should be provided by charities is a matter open for debate. Of course it's inevitable there will be some freeloaders but as long as it pays to work this can be minimised.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 11:17:54 am
content: Quote from: Hero999 on January 26, 2016, 08:58:34 amYou can want that, but you can't do it without arbitrary limits. It's all in the details, and those details often require the use of "forbidden words"-Who wants to pay for the correction surgery a women needs, after she chose 3 cheap nose jobs and her 10th breast implant?-Who wants to pay for my Formule-1 / Nascar driver "education" ?2 strange examples, of course, but there's a whole range between useful educations and useless, a range between obvious healthcare and waste.And it's a politician that's gonna decide, backed by the ignorant masses. "Earth is flat and mariuhana heals cancer."The one that promises everything to everyone, will take all your money and give you nothing.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 12:07:40 pm
content: "All right, I'll come clean: I was playing devil's advocate."Nice try."Spend money on health and those who can't work due to illness will be able to return to work and have less time off sick."So, your rationale for a tax payer funded healthcare is so the sick to get back to work soon and contribute to the states taz revenue.Does that mean that you think it is OK to not provide healthcare to people who have no hope of ever going back to work, like the elderly or the terminally ill? Do you think it is OK to ration healthcare based ones value contribution to the society? So a lowly paid maid would get less healthcare than the presisent.Your motivation to provide the healthcare sounds identical to that of a plantation owner providing healthcare to his slaves: so they can get back to work.Amazing how frightening your slip-up can be. Almost like the Gruber moment,"Society should also provide some kind of safety net and provide food, shelter etc. to those who fall on hard times. "But why unconditioned free healthcare but limited food and shelter? A flu not treated typically doesnt kill you but no food and no water will definitely kill you, so why do you put free healthcare above and beyond free lifes essentials?"If course it's inevitable there will be some freeloaders but as long as it pays to work this can be minimised."I guess tough luck to the elderly and terminally ill in your utopia.At least you had the courage to spill the guts up front.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 12:21:42 pm
content: Quote from: Galenbo on January 26, 2016, 11:17:54 amPrivate providers of medical and cosmetic services should purchase insurance that will pay for correction in the case of medical negligence. Insurance will be backed by the state should the provider be unable to cover the patients (in the same way that the US government covers space flight accidents beyond $100 million as it is impractical for an insurer to pay out such a large amount for one incident.) In the case of non-negligence the patient should pay for any corrections. Cosmetic surgery is not covered on the NHS, except if the surgery would significantly improve the quality of life (for example facial reconstruction, burns treatment) or is medically necessary.Quote from: Galenbo on January 26, 2016, 11:17:54 amYou can pay for that. Just like I pay for university. (Although, I do think university education should be more widely accessible for STEM students, there is no shortage at this time.)

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 12:35:07 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 26, 2016, 12:07:40 pmOf course society has a moral obligation to support those who can't fend for themselves, especially the elderly who have paid into national insurance for many years and need medical treatment.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 12:44:23 pm
content: Your rationale for free healthcareoves faster than Obama's line in the Syrian sand,

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 12:47:23 pm
content: As time goes by, I have more and more appreciation of our founding fathers wanting this country to be a representative republic, not a democracy where quantity not quality rules.Too bad that over the years we have drifted so far from it that there doesn't seem to exist a peaceful fix.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 05:33:56 pm
content: Dannyf,Experts seem to agree that in not very long a time (25 years - give or take decade or so) the kinds of jobs that were the norm in the 20th century will be very rare and most people's incomes will come from inherited wealth or investments, or similar.Leaving an awful lot of people with virtually no way of supporting themselves with consistency. The only way we can prevent that is by taking a much broader, less elitist approach to education, and especially stop trying to beat the spirit out of poor people, something increasingly clueless American politicians seem to do by habit, but the fact is, its not necessary to do that because we wont need them to work. Beating people's creativity out of them is counterproductive..Quote from: miguelvp on January 26, 2016, 04:31:30 amThe problem is, we're signing trade deals that will take away the politicians ability to change the reasons for it by giving them in the form of new property interests, to various corporations. the only way to change things will be to start your own country outside of the jurisdiction of these trade pacts. Elections will be symbolic, and leaders will be more ceremonial than not, thats already happening in the US.QuoteThe problem is, the government isnt allowed to do almost everything which we think of as the ways to save money. Remember the beginning of the Obama Administration when he spent all that time with whatever hiis name is from Louisiana who was the head of the association of drug manufacturing companies, and then they emerged with a cover up that claimed all those things had been taken off the table as part of some deal? the fact is, they were all already trade positions, but true to form they created a cover story so they would not be discussed.. About the only thing that they are allowed to do anything beside abandon sick people (because everything else would in some way be either "trade distorting" or require breaking some ideologically rigid policy) is increase global trade in services, so that would mean either shipping sick people elsewhere for treatment, or - and this is the most likely short term, in fact its part of the Geneva treaty, the US and other signatory nations, when a corporation wanted to move their employee from country to country, in an intra corporate transfer, member nations would have to recognize their licenses - from other countries. That is part of the disciplines on domestic regulation. The model for this were the GATS disciplines on the accountancy profession, which can be read, they are public, basically recognize licenses and issue visas in all services for the employees of sining (low bidding) services firms (contracts will be procured using a global -e-bidding system) That would aply to a great many professions, and only then would they be deemed "no more restrictive than necessary to ensure the quality of the service". Wages will fall, there may be no limits on that, or their may. Certainly, paying a foreign PhD or MS a minimum wage is a good deal for the customers of multinational companies.QuoteWe should understand that the gains may be concentrated in one area and all other trades may see big losses. For example, it seems that studies about one big trade deal are largely negative as to jobs, and my impression is that it will see almost all its gains in the automotive industry and losses elsewhere for smaller companies and market sectors that cannot adapt to the new normals. (http://ttip2016.eu/blog-detail/blog/ttip%20jobs.html- note that there are lots of links at this URL to other studies, they are worth reading)I think that gains for the US may be concentrated in areas like pharmaceuticals and agribusiness, and of course, the lure of an almost unlimited possibilities of replacing expensive, often union labor with cheap globalized staffing in expensive services is a huge draw. They may be able to do away with the "economic means tests" and wage parity requirements too. ( Foreign services firms are already gearing up to service this anticipated market. See tradeinservices dot net, for example. ) And the protests from displaced "professional protectionists" will have a hard time arguing with the provision of jobs to firms from Afica and South Asia - certified Least Developed Countries (LDCs) will be allowed to maintain "state oenwed enterprises" like public monopolies in educational brands and health care monopolies (concessions), and discriminate in certain areas as far as their regulations, while rich countries like those in the EU and especially US will have to end them. they will be out of ceremonial politicians and the ceremonial Presidents hands. Subsidies in wages (minimum wage laws) and other forms of protectionism that disproportionately exclude firms from trading partners are framed as "more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service" in successful wealthy countries like the US.So, my final impression is that we're going to be overwhelmed with a whole set of changes which almost nobody will understand the rationales for (and if they do understand them they are likely to disagree with them)When you change so many things at the same time, the risk of a huge disaster I think are astronomical. I think its sheer insanity to try to make so many changes, with unexpected impossible to guess outcomes, at once.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 05:52:48 pm
content: Since several people mentioned Jonathan Gruber, I think this should be mentioned - I think that he was one of the two people who first wrote about the so called "crowd out" of "private insurance" by public insurance- - framing it as an effect, a framing that is wrong, if public education and insurance are allowed to cexist, that cannot be done, as it basically criminalizes them, its an attack on them, its saying things cant remain the same - a change that with GATS is designed to tear them apart, a death by a thousand cuts, read GATS Article I:3 (b) and (c)-such as with existing public education or health care.. Crowd out also is an attack on the working poor, as it directly contradicted decades of research from the SCHIP program that showed that a great great many American families with children were so cashed strapped that even small co-pays out of pocket would prevent children from getting even desperately needed care. because they just didnt have it, you cant get money from a stone. many parents - many families were working multiple low paying jobs. They did not have this extra money they were said to have, they ignored all of that in setting up Obamacare. At the demands of health insurance companies..a direct result of GATS's thinking and its competition policy" which is the line of thinking that says that any public anything (healthcare or education) has to be made horrible enough so that anybody who can afford better will avoid it because it is truly bad, it cannot be too attractive, it must gradually become crap in order to comply with trade deals and ideology.(Combined with a possibly work-sparse future, "progressive liberalisation" -privatization of every public service that can be framed as possibly competing with a for profit provider in any way, it is a huge mistake, a thoughtless recipe to lock in a global disaster)The insertion of these concepts into promoted trade deals and ideology, in a non-obvious way, right there was a huge huge mistake that was done at the demands of big US corporations. So anybody who says Gruber was the "architect of Obamacare" (which is totally wrong, BTW) should keep that crapification in mind, and recognize it. In fact, Mitt Romney was mre the architect of the Massachusetts predecessor of Obamacare (which increased not decreased medical debt in the state- also, the Massachusetts plan was more generous than Obamacare!)Who "wrote the aca" ? Insurance industry heavyweights, thats who, and they wrote it to benefit themselves more than anybody else, of course, the person who wrote the ACA is Liz Fowler, a former Baucus staffer who at the time was working for Wellpoint, a health insurance company)How do i know this? I watched every single one of the ACA finance committee hearings. What an ordeal. But I learned a lot about how these things are structured and its not pretty.Competition policy as its incorporated into these things is all wrong.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2016, 12:41:09 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 26, 2016, 12:44:23 pmNope, my rationale and opinion on the matter haven't change a great deal since the start of the topic. I'm just able to see it from both sides and argue accordingly.Quote from: dannyf on January 26, 2016, 12:47:23 pmAs in any country, the problem is large cooperate bodies have most of the power. When something is changed, there will be winners and losers. The health insurance companies wouldn't like a proper public health insurance programme because it would most likely them out of business. They have a lot of money and power so to lobby the government and put out advertisements to scare people into voting against it. Therefore it will never happen. Politicians such as Obama will just produce half arsed policies in attempt to appear they're doing some good and make the system suck less than it does.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2016, 07:30:49 pm
content: QuoteYeah, there is definitely a consensus amongst experts that agree to the consensus that .....If you had listened to "experts", we would have either frozen to death ("global cooling"), or boiled to death ("global warming"), we would be traveling from galaxies to galaxies, or we would have been living in the caves after a nuclear annihilation, .....The point is, experts are more like fraudsters: the less you trust them, the wiser you are.