• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is the top reason for the current US economic problem?

What is te top reason for the current US economic criss?

  • Tax rates on job creators are too high.

    Votes: 1 2.0%

  • Technology has eliminated many jobs

    Votes: 1 2.0%

  • Our workforce is not qualified enough to demand high paying jobs in science and technology

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Competition with cheap overseas labor

    Votes: 14 28.0%

  • Healthcare reform

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Too much regulation on business

    Votes: 8 16.0%

  • Too little regulation on business

    Votes: 16 32.0%

  • Barack Obama

    Votes: 10 20.0%
  • Total voters
    50
UtahBill said:
automation considerably reduced the low skill manufacturing jobs that don't require much education first.....
computers are now displacing knowledge/information type jobs.
Things are gonna keep getting harder, it will take more brainpower to get and hold a good paying job. I got my kids believing, next up is to convince the grandkids... I tell them to educate and train for a job that a computer can't do, or can't do without supervision....
Click to expand...

*does the Chinese robot*

chinese-factory-worker.jpg


ching chong wing wong
 
DVSentinel said:
I didn't actually vote in this poll as there is not option for "other".

The answer is simple and can be summed up in one word; GREED.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed:

Greed is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. It is applied to a markedly high desire for and pursuit of wealth, status, and power.

As a secular psychological concept, greed is, similarly, an inordinate desire to acquire or possess more than one needs. It is typically used to criticize those who seek excessive material wealth, although it may apply to the need to feel more excessively moral, social, or otherwise better than someone else.

Greed of workers wanting more and more for their labor.

Greed of busniness owners to have more and more profit

Greed of people who want to do nothing but have the government provided more and more

Greed of people who want more and more luxeries and thus overuse credit to obtain what they are unwilling to save to get

Greed of groups who wish to display their superiority over other groupings which causes friction and violence

Greed of people who want the government to hand out more and more entitlements

etc, etc, etc... Greed, Greed, Greed...
Click to expand...

the greed works on many levels. the greed of the american worker demanding so much money, but then that same greed causes these same people to refuse to buy goods that are made by people getting that money.

If everyone in America demands 25 or more an hour and only buys products made for 1 dollar or less we got a problem
 
Matt Foley said:
Oh come on, why don't you like the Chinese robot joke.
Click to expand...

My post wasn't about your childish joke, it was about you childishly changing my quote because you couldn't refute it. Grow up!
 
muciti said:
the greed works on many levels. the greed of the american worker demanding so much money, but then that same greed causes these same people to refuse to buy goods that are made by people getting that money.

If everyone in America demands 25 or more an hour and only buys products made for 1 dollar or less we got a problem
Click to expand...

I agree, I only listed a few examples off the top of my head while typing. I know I didn't get them all, by an stretch of the immagination, thus the etc, etc, etc...at the bottom. Thank you for another example. Of course, I said before, most of everything that everyone is posting here leads back to greed of one form or another, the differences is only in the details of what is done and who is the greedy party.
 
Catawba said:
My post wasn't about your childish joke, it was about you childishly changing my quote because you couldn't refute it. Grow up!
Click to expand...

If you had a brain in your head you'd realize I wasn't refuting your post, I was expanding on it.
 
Matt Foley said:
If you had a brain in your head you'd realize I wasn't refuting your post, I was expanding on it.
Click to expand...

Expand it into something that was not my meaning. Grow the **** up kid!
 
Catawba said:
You forgot to factor in health care costs, the leading cause of bankruptcy among middle and lower income people:

Health_care_cost_rise.svg


Repeal of Obamacare: House Republicans' empty gesture | Thomas Rogan | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
Click to expand...

I don't think so, seems to me that the study that everyone refers to when saying medical expenses are a major part of bankruptcy was flawed. It was torn apart by people with access to the raw data.
Unless you have a more current study? It can be a contributing factor, easily, but leading cause?
 
Matt Foley said:
Actually it's you kiddies who keep clinging onto old partisanship.
Click to expand...

Given the immaturity of your posting, I guarantee I am older than you.
 
UtahBill said:
I don't think so, seems to me that the study that everyone refers to when saying medical expenses are a major part of bankruptcy was flawed. It was torn apart by people with access to the raw data.
Unless you have a more current study? It can be a contributing factor, easily, but leading cause?
Click to expand...

"At least 62 percent of all U.S. family bankruptcies result from medical expenses, reports a study released yesterday in The American Journal of Medicine—an increase from the 46 percent the reseachers found in 2001."

News Blog: Are medical costs the leading cause of U.S. bankruptcies?
 
Catawba said:
"At least 62 percent of all U.S. family bankruptcies result from medical expenses, reports a study released yesterday in The American Journal of Medicine—an increase from the 46 percent the reseachers found in 2001."

News Blog: Are medical costs the leading cause of U.S. bankruptcies?
Click to expand...

dig a little deeper...
google "flawed study medical expenses bankruptcy" or "Aparna Mathur medical bankruptcy"

We have 2 kids, grown and married....they both married into families that have more than a few bankruptcies over the years, before the current real estate bubble and job loss situation....
Only one of the 5 bankruptcies had medical bills as PART of the cause, and that one PLANNED his bankruptcy around needed knee surgery. He kept everything current til he got the surgery, then filed.
Just because someone has medical bills piling up next to credit card bills doesn't mean that medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcies. Last time we cussed and discussed this here on DP, I had a link that actually showed the average dollar amount for medical bills. IIRC, it wasn't that much. It may have been the one I have a link for, at the bottom of this post.
LSS, without digging deeper, my readings and my experience says that the findings of a group that is pro national health care should be taken with a grain of salt. The leading cause of bankruptcies is not medial bills, it is living beyond your means, sometimes with money that should have been spent on health care insurance.
http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/Senate Judiciary MedicalBankruptcies 102009.pdf
 
Last edited:
UtahBill said:
dig a little deeper...
google "flawed study medical expenses bankruptcy" or "Aparna Mathur medical bankruptcy"

We have 2 kids, grown and married....they both married into families that have more than a few bankruptcies over the years, before the current real estate bubble and job loss situation....
Only one of the 5 bankruptcies had medical bills as PART of the cause, and that one PLANNED his bankruptcy around needed knee surgery. He kept everything current til he got the surgery, then filed.
Just because someone has medical bills piling up next to credit card bills doesn't mean that medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcies. Last time we cussed and discussed this here on DP, I had a link that actually showed the average dollar amount for medical bills. IIRC, it wasn't that much. It may have been the one I have a link for, at the bottom of this post.
LSS, without digging deeper, my readings and my experience says that the findings of a group that is pro national health care should be taken with a grain of salt. The leading cause of bankruptcies is not medial bills, it is living beyond your means, sometimes with money that should have been spent on health care insurance.
http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/Senate Judiciary MedicalBankruptcies 102009.pdf
Click to expand...


Hey Bill, Hope you and the family are doing well!

I looked at the congressional testimony, and I have to tell you I was about to be impressed...........until I did as you said and dug a little deeper. There was only one person that testified in that paper by the Hudson Institute. I wondered about the Hudson Institute as well because I had never heard of them, while I was very familiar with The American Journal of Medicine. Turns out that the Hudson Institute is an ultra conservative think tank and the lady speaking has a long association with ultra conservative groups, and the conservative Bush Administration.

The study by the AJM also passes the smell test better as I know in my own case that our health insurance, being self-employed, is almost unaffordable, so I can see where many that are not as well off as we are, would not be able to afford health insurance. Then, if they have some major medical problem they are screwed financially.

So, thanks, but I will have to go with the study by the American Journal of Medicine over the this lady at the Hudson Institute.


Take care my friend!
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That has nothing to do with declining employment in the manufacturing industry, coupled with increasing productivity.
People who say manufacturing went to China are wrong.
Click to expand...

I was responding to your statement about inflated costs for people. We have had a huge cost increase in health care costs for people since 1975, the beginning date on your graph above.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Adjustments for inflation show the same trend.
Sorry, automation is replacing the need for human employees.

US Manufacturing: Output Growth, Employment Decline | Department of Numbers
Click to expand...
Sorry, you were showing gains in manufacturing, not just automation replacing workers. Since the gains in manufacturing were the only numbers shown in dollars I assumed - obviously incorrectly - that you would figure out my comment was about the amount of manufacturing, not the workers.

Your own chart (above) and your original chart (below) when adjusted for inflation shows manufacturing in America has been on the decline for decades.

Harry Guerrilla said:
manufacturing-for-web-PNG26.png
Click to expand...


There are many sites that will adjust for inflation, I'll let you pick your own. The differences are big enough it shouldn't matter which one you use as long as it's USD. :)
Here are the results from mine:

1975 $100.00 (bottom chart $1500)
1992 $261.12 (top chart $4.2)
2008 $395.90 (top chart $5.6 but would need to be $6.36 to break even compared to 1992, more for growth)
2009 $394.32 (bottom chart $3500 but would need to be $5915 to break even compared to 1975)
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
I was responding to your statement about inflated costs for people. We have had a huge cost increase in health care costs for people since 1975, the beginning date on your graph above.
Click to expand...

Yeah, about the time the government decided that hospitals couldn't "deny" care if someone were uninsured. Coincidence? I doubt it. It's also around the time all the equal care for everyone BS started, as if that could actually be achieved except at the lowest possible standard.

And before you start the whole UHC diatribe, why don't you go look up the number of hospitals per capita, doctors per capita, newer technologies and their availability under UHC, waiting times to receive emergncy and non-emergency care and waiting times for different surgeries and if they are even available in UHC countries and the availability of newer more effective drugs under a UHC system. Oh, and check out the number of deaths following surgery from infection and compare those to the US vs UHC countries. I would provide you some of the data myself, except you would just complain about sources and say I was lying or using false data, so show us what you can find.

And since you wanted to bring up medical tourism in the past, go ahead and look up how many Americans leave for health care and what for, then compare that to the numbers that come to America to get care and what for.
 
Last edited:
DVSentinel said:
Yeah, about the time the government decided that hospitals couldn't "deny" care if someone were uninsured. Coincidence? I doubt it. It's also around the time all the equal care for everyone BS started, as if that could actually be achieved except at the lowest possible standard.
Click to expand...
I lived during those times - I don't want to go back.

DVSentinel said:
And before you start the whole UHC diatribe, why don't you go look up the number of hospitals per capita, doctors per capita, newer technologies and their availability under UHC, waiting times to receive emergncy and non-emergency care and waiting times for different surgeries and if they are even available in UHC countries and the availability of newer more effective drugs under a UHC system. Oh, and check out the number of deaths following surgery from infection and compare those to the US vs UHC countries. I would provide you some of the data myself, except you would just complain about sources and say I was lying or using false data, so show us what you can find.
Click to expand...
The fact that doctors flock to the US should be no surprise. If I could earn triple my existing salary for doing the same job I'd move to another country, too.


As for the rest - why don't you look up mortality rates and life expectancy in various countries including the US? Go see where we fit into those categories. I'll give you a hint: Even with our outrageous health care costs we are far from being #1 in either category.
 
Last edited:
DVSentinel said:
Yeah, about the time the government decided that hospitals couldn't "deny" care if someone were uninsured. Coincidence? I doubt it. It's also around the time all the equal care for everyone BS started, as if that could actually be achieved except at the lowest possible standard.

And before you start the whole UHC diatribe, why don't you go look up the number of hospitals per capita, doctors per capita, newer technologies and their availability under UHC, waiting times to receive emergncy and non-emergency care and waiting times for different surgeries and if they are even available in UHC countries and the availability of newer more effective drugs under a UHC system. Oh, and check out the number of deaths following surgery from infection and compare those to the US vs UHC countries. I would provide you some of the data myself, except you would just complain about sources and say I was lying or using false data, so show us what you can find.

And since you wanted to bring up medical tourism in the past, go ahead and look up how many Americans leave for health care and what for, then compare that to the numbers that come to America to get care and what for.
Click to expand...

What Canada and other countries found that upgraded to UHC was that overhead/administrative costs was the biggest savings. It costs more in overhead costs to run Blue Cross Blue Shield in one state here as it does to run the whole health care system in Canada.

Further, "The U.S. wastes more on health care bureaucracy than it would cost to provide health care to all of the uninsured. Administrative expenses will consume at least $399.4 billion out of total health expenditures of $1,660.5 billion in 2003. Streamlining administrative overhead to Canadian levels would save approximately $286.0 billion in 2003, $6,940 for each of the 41.2 million Americans who were uninsured as of 2001. This is substantially more than would be needed to provide full insurance coverage."

Publication Administrative Waste in the U.S.Health Care System in 2003 (HRG Publication #1673)
 
Catawba said:
What Canada and other countries found that upgraded to UHC was that overhead/administrative costs was the biggest savings. It costs more in overhead costs to run Blue Cross Blue Shield in one state here as it does to run the whole health care system in Canada.

Further, "The U.S. wastes more on health care bureaucracy than it would cost to provide health care to all of the uninsured. Administrative expenses will consume at least $399.4 billion out of total health expenditures of $1,660.5 billion in 2003. Streamlining administrative overhead to Canadian levels would save approximately $286.0 billion in 2003, $6,940 for each of the 41.2 million Americans who were uninsured as of 2001. This is substantially more than would be needed to provide full insurance coverage."

Publication Administrative Waste in the U.S.Health Care System in 2003 (HRG Publication #1673)
Click to expand...

It has to be emphasised, strongly, that those "administrative costs" are found in the private health insurance companies and not in some "massively swollen federal bureaucracy", no matter how much those on the right argue that 'business always does it better'
 
Somerville said:
It has to be emphasised, strongly, that those "administrative costs" are found in the private health insurance companies and not in some "massively swollen federal bureaucracy", no matter how much those on the right argue that 'business always does it better'
Click to expand...

You are right of course. I guess I thought people would get that from this:

"It costs more in overhead costs to run Blue Cross Blue Shield in one state here as it does to run the whole health care system in Canada."
 
Catawba said:
I was responding to your statement about inflated costs for people. We have had a huge cost increase in health care costs for people since 1975, the beginning date on your graph above.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I said nothing of the sort.
I dunno who you were trying to respond to, but it wasn't me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom