Trump and the Press

[NM11046]

Oade: My sibling lives in Sweden. A Nebraskan who is married to an Italian. I'm pretty confident that their healthcare is 100% covered like a swede (and the spouse has never worked). I believe they had to wait a little longer to have dental coverage (for some reason this is only provided for younger swedes so as a whole they do far less with dental than health) but they have that now as well. They have not applied for citizenship.

 

According to their national website:

• Illegal aliens and asylum seekers get emergency care but have to pay for their full cost care. Children who are living under these circumstances and are under 18 get free care.
• Foreigners legally resident in Sweden are entitled to healthcare on the same terms as Swedes.
• All residents of Sweden have to pay fees when accessing healthcare. These range from 140 kronor (which is about $16 US dollars) for a visit to a doctor to 200 kronor for an x-ray. Costs are capped (900 Kronor which amounts to about $100) for doctor’s visits, and similar low amounts for other medical care.

 

https://sweden.se/society/health-care-in-sweden/

 

Also this provides some clarity: http://www.thelocal.se/20130327/46910

 

The good nuggets:

"What makes Sweden an attractive choice for expats is that they are entitled to receive the same healthcare, education, and welfare benefits as the native population."

"Healthcare coverage in Sweden is universal, which means all residents, including expatriates, have access to publically financed healthcare services. This system covers inpatient and outpatient hospital care, prescription drugs, primary healthcare, dental care for children and young people, public health and preventive services, disability support and rehabilitation services.

In addition, homecare, nursing homecare, and patient transport support services are also covered under the publicly financed healthcare system"

[knapplc]

It's similar to France, where my sister-in-law lived. She suffered a pretty significant injury in a beach accident. Her emergency treatment, ongoing care and physical therapy were all covered. She was never a French citizen, nor is her husband.

[RedDenver]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Certainly the Democratic party would go a long way to not fall into the trap of the Republicans over the last 8 years - ie, reactionary platforms/positions instead of being proactive, however, you can't make the same kind of claim regarding manipulation of facts, misinformation, and bald-faced lies for any past President, imo. Maybe Nixon I guess.

 

No, you can make that claim of literally every president. Certainly to varying degrees, but that same statement and sentiment can be painted onto any past/current politician.

 

Obama would have us all believe that Obamacare is a good thing. Which is not true. Current dems (and maybe even a few Repubs) would want us all believe that an adjusted/improved/less-republican-tweeked version of Obamacare would be a good thing, which is not true. Obama & Bush would have us believe that the Auto and Bank bailouts were good things, not true imo.

 

Obama said that the Russians were a non-issue, not a major concern, and that "the Cold War is over, Mr. Romney" - not true imo. Bush had us believe that there were WMDs. Bill Clinton didn't inhale or have sexual relations. If I was older, or if I cared to look it up, I'm sure I could remember more falsehoods from any and every former president.

 

20 million people who can go to the doctor instead of suffering along or dying might disagree with you.

 

I'll never understand why people just point blank say "Obamacare is bad." As someone in healthcare, it just doesn't compute. Most folks in the field love it and want to keep it, although we admit it needs tweaked.

 

All things equal, what do you believe would be a better option?

 

And Moiriane is correct, IMO. Comparing the way Trump vomits on the truth every single day is a disservice to any of those other presidents, even if they did lie.

 

I would say it's the wrong course for the government to take. I would call it an unfair tax and an unconstitutional tax in a lot of ways.

 

I would say the intention behind Obamacare is nice and well intended, but that government insurance of any sort ignores the real issues.

 

Yes everyone should have fair and equal access to health care, but the better option of addressing unfair costs (including unfair insurance costs, which will surely continue to rise until things addressed properly) would be to fix the value of the dollar. If a healthy currency doesn't fix the unfair costs on its own, then the government should work to make sure pharmaceutical prices are fair ($600 epi-pen comes to mind), not insure them.

 

Although it's well intended, 50 years from now, people are going to look back and see that programs like Obamacare only helped to nosedive the economy even further, which drive costs and expenses up, which only continues to make health care unaffordable for everyone, not just the people on Obamacare, private health insurance prices will rise too.

 

 

What I don't understand is why people think insurance is necessary at all. If the cost of health care is fair and true, and if the value of the dollar is fair and true, then what purpose does insurance serve?..... I can understand doctors like it because it probably saves them from being screwed over on payments.... I have several doctors & therapists in my family and extended family, and although I've never heard them speak against it, I have yet to hear them speak highly of it either, so I'm sure that's situational as well.

 

All I know is that without insurance, my daughter's birth would have cost upwards of $100,000. So there's that, I guess.

 

It's funny that you bring that, as I almost did myself...

 

After both of my grandparents passed away, the kids went through all of their saved records. Of the 6 kids, they found the complete collection of 5 of their birth records, 3 girls and 2 boys.

 

My grandparents had the records from their first doctor visit after learning they were pregnant through a 2 day stay in the hospital, and heading home with baby in hand.

 

1950s, with no insurance, and 9 years between the first child and the last child... The grand total of the 3 girls was exactly $88. The two boys that they found records for were both exactly $94. The $6 difference was a circumcision.... I'm curious what the cost is of a circumcision these days? Has the quality of circumcision improved a great deal? Is it still not truly worth $6?

 

9 months of coverage for less than $100... That should be the goal of the government, not MORE insurance.

 

It speaks to the consistency of the economy, the dollar, and the quality of care over the course of a decade.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that the quality of care has improved, the number of desired doctor visits have increased, or that an increase in price is entirely unwarranted.... However, the inflation of pieces to the tune of $20k, $50k, or $100 absolutely needs to be addressed, and part of that problem is health insurance companies.

 

I don't have kids, so I can't speak from personal experience, that's just the way I see it.

 

I would imagine that lawyers have had a greater impact on the cost of healthcare since those kids were born than the value of the dollar.

 

 

I wish I could agree with you, but the inflated prices run pretty much across the board.... Health expenses, auto prices, home prices, the cost of milk, gas, school, you name it the prices have increased by huge margins. I won't disagree that there are other contributing factors from industry to industry or product to product, but I also don't think that those factors can be fairly and truly addressed until after the dollar is fixed.

 

What's broken about the dollar? How do we fix it?

 

EDIT - to expand on this, healthcare expenditures have risen at a greater rate than auto prices, home prices, the cost of milk, gas, school, etc.

 

For example, going back to 1960 (50-ish years), average costs have risen:

 

Homes 1960 $19,300 || 2010 $152,000 (687% increase)

Cars $3,233 || $31,252 (866%)

Milk $1.04/Gallon || $3.49/Gallon (235%)

Gas $.32/Gallon || $3.20/Gallon (900%)

Education $204/year || $16,546/year (8,010%)

Healthcare $147/year || $8,403/year (5,615%)

 

Here's a pretty good page explaining the hows & whys of increased healthcare costs in the past 50 years. I didn't see the value of the dollar cited as a major factor in this study.

 

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2015/11/23/national-health-spending-1960-2013/

 

Inflation doesn't actually mean real prices have increased because wages have also gone up. You have to look at the prices of things compared to the income. For example, food prices have been declining as a percentage of income.

[Oade]

I have googled it. That's why I'm asking where you're getting that. You're not talking specifics about healthcare, but general economic theories.

 

There are an equal number of sources that support taking currency off the gold standard. But that's not what we're talking about here.

 

Apparently not. I already shared some keywords and an economist worth reading up on. Exactly right.

 

Yes, and they would be wrong. No, the cost of health care, or any industry, is directly tied to the economy and currency.

[Oade]

Oade: My sibling lives in Sweden. A Nebraskan who is married to an Italian. I'm pretty confident that their healthcare is 100% covered like a swede (and the spouse has never worked). I believe they had to wait a little longer to have dental coverage (for some reason this is only provided for younger swedes so as a whole they do far less with dental than health) but they have that now as well. They have not applied for citizenship.

 

According to their national website:

• Illegal aliens and asylum seekers get emergency care but have to pay for their full cost care. Children who are living under these circumstances and are under 18 get free care.
• Foreigners legally resident in Sweden are entitled to healthcare on the same terms as Swedes.
• All residents of Sweden have to pay fees when accessing healthcare. These range from 140 kronor (which is about $16 US dollars) for a visit to a doctor to 200 kronor for an x-ray. Costs are capped (900 Kronor which amounts to about $100) for doctor’s visits, and similar low amounts for other medical care.

 

https://sweden.se/society/health-care-in-sweden/

 

Also this provides some clarity: http://www.thelocal.se/20130327/46910

 

The good nuggets:

"What makes Sweden an attractive choice for expats is that they are entitled to receive the same healthcare, education, and welfare benefits as the native population."

"Healthcare coverage in Sweden is universal, which means all residents, including expatriates, have access to publically financed healthcare services. This system covers inpatient and outpatient hospital care, prescription drugs, primary healthcare, dental care for children and young people, public health and preventive services, disability support and rehabilitation services.

In addition, homecare, nursing homecare, and patient transport support services are also covered under the publicly financed healthcare system"

 

That's interesting, and completely opposite what my left-leaning friend said was the case. Thanks, good to know!!

[knapplc]

No, the cost of health care, or any industry, is directly tied to the economy and currency.

 

 

Every industry has unique stressors. The currency is only one of dozens of factors affecting healthcare costs.

[RedDenver]

Oade, your notions about the gold standard are just plain wrong. Trying to stay on the gold standard is a large part of what lead to the Great Depression. Here's an article from a few years ago that explains it. And the main point:

 

Economics is often a contentious subject, but economists agree about the gold standard -- it is a barbarous relic that belongs in the dustbin of history. As University of Chicago professor Richard Thaler points out, exactly zero economists endorsed the idea in a recent poll. What makes it such an idea non grata? It prevents the central bank from fighting recessions by outsourcing monetary policy decisions to how much gold we have -- which, in turn, depends on our trade balance and on how much of the shiny rock we can dig up. When we peg the dollar to gold we have to raise interest rates when gold is scarce, regardless of the state of the economy. This policy inflexibility was the major cause of the Great Depression, as governments were forced to tighten policy at the worst possible moment. It's no coincidence that the sooner a country abandoned the gold standard, the sooner it began recovering.

[Oade]

 

No, the cost of health care, or any industry, is directly tied to the economy and currency.

 

 

Every industry has unique stressors. The currency is only one of dozens of factors affecting healthcare costs.

 

 

Yes, but the value of the dollar is ground zero to those other factors. Its the most central factor..... Until the currency/economy is addressed, then we're not really addressing anything by manipulating or fine-tuning other contributing factors of any industry.

[knapplc]

If that was the only factor, healthcare costs would have risen at a pace similar to costs of other things. But as I showed earlier, it has far outstripped home prices, car prices, gas prices, all of which are affected by currency policy.

 

It's pretty clear the gold standard - or lack thereof - is not the primary factor in out-of-control healthcare costs. This has been a bizarre tangent to this thread.

[Oade]

 

Oade, your notions about the gold standard are just plain wrong. Trying to stay on the gold standard is a large part of what lead to the Great Depression. Here's an article from a few years ago that explains it. And the main point:

 

Economics is often a contentious subject, but economists agree about the gold standard -- it is a barbarous relic that belongs in the dustbin of history. As University of Chicago professor Richard Thaler points out, exactly zero economists endorsed the idea in a recent poll. What makes it such an idea non grata? It prevents the central bank from fighting recessions by outsourcing monetary policy decisions to how much gold we have -- which, in turn, depends on our trade balance and on how much of the shiny rock we can dig up. When we peg the dollar to gold we have to raise interest rates when gold is scarce, regardless of the state of the economy. This policy inflexibility was the major cause of the Great Depression, as governments were forced to tighten policy at the worst possible moment. It's no coincidence that the sooner a country abandoned the gold standard, the sooner it began recovering.

 

 

 

Its also no coincidence that as soon as we went of the gold standard that we started to pile up national debt. Recovery by debt, good for the bankers....

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

BigRedBuster,said, Well...there is a plan that would take insurance companies completely out of it but Republican's heads would explode.

 

​Could you talk about this more and explain, as best you can, how this plan would work? Because frankly, I have no idea how any plan could eliminate insurance companies. That almost seems too far-fetched to be even possible.

Simple.....

 

Single payer plan. Many countries have a fund that everyone pays into. This fund pays for healthcare for everyone. There isn't insurance companies vying for your business for no other reason than to put in place a barrier between you and health care and make a ton of money off of it.

 

Now, this program is not perfect. Yes, the costs are much lower. But, the service is not nearly as good as we have here in the US. You are also turning the healthcare industry over to a public program. (that's where the Republican's heads will explode)

 

I used to be 100% against this idea. I'm not ready to jump on board as a full supporter yet. But, when stepping back away from all the party rhetoric and crap.......this might be the best option to accomplish what people wan which is access to everyone and lower costs.

 

I find it funny that old people and a lot of veterans are Republican and oppose this vehemently.....even though they are on Vets benefits and Medicare.

 

 

 

I can't speak to what every country like this does, but I was having a conversation the other day about Sweden who does something like this.... One of the biggest reasons that they can sustain National/Gov healthcare is because you have to be a Swiss Citizen to qualify (which is even tougher than gaining US citizenship apparently). You literally don't qualify unless you are born in that country. Most spouses who marry into a Swiss family never receive citizenship, and thus never qualify.... They also have a much much much smaller population than the US.... Simply put, they can sustain because they have a smaller and more consistent number of people receiving care, which likely isn't possible in the US, esp if we want to continue to grant citizenship to whoever wants in.

 

Size of the population really isn't a factor in if this is sustainable. The larger the population is, the more people with access to the health system....however, there are more people paying for it. The per capita cost is what is important.

 

Quickly reading a little on the German system, undocumented immigrants are covered under their SS system. LINK

[Oade]

If that was the only factor, healthcare costs would have risen at a pace similar to costs of other things. But as I showed earlier, it has far outstripped home prices, car prices, gas prices, all of which are affected by currency policy.

 

It's pretty clear the gold standard - or lack thereof - is not the primary factor in out-of-control healthcare costs. This has been a bizarre tangent to this thread.

 

 

 

Oade, your notions about the gold standard are just plain wrong. Trying to stay on the gold standard is a large part of what lead to the Great Depression. Here's an article from a few years ago that explains it. And the main point:

 

Economics is often a contentious subject, but economists agree about the gold standard -- it is a barbarous relic that belongs in the dustbin of history. As University of Chicago professor Richard Thaler points out, exactly zero economists endorsed the idea in a recent poll. What makes it such an idea non grata? It prevents the central bank from fighting recessions by outsourcing monetary policy decisions to how much gold we have -- which, in turn, depends on our trade balance and on how much of the shiny rock we can dig up. When we peg the dollar to gold we have to raise interest rates when gold is scarce, regardless of the state of the economy. This policy inflexibility was the major cause of the Great Depression, as governments were forced to tighten policy at the worst possible moment. It's no coincidence that the sooner a country abandoned the gold standard, the sooner it began recovering.

 

 

 

If you were tasked with creating a new currency that consumers & industries widely accept as payment, and to develope a fair and balanced economy, where would you start?

[BigRedBuster]

 

If that was the only factor, healthcare costs would have risen at a pace similar to costs of other things. But as I showed earlier, it has far outstripped home prices, car prices, gas prices, all of which are affected by currency policy.

 

It's pretty clear the gold standard - or lack thereof - is not the primary factor in out-of-control healthcare costs. This has been a bizarre tangent to this thread.

 

 

 

Oade, your notions about the gold standard are just plain wrong. Trying to stay on the gold standard is a large part of what lead to the Great Depression. Here's an article from a few years ago that explains it. And the main point:

 

Economics is often a contentious subject, but economists agree about the gold standard -- it is a barbarous relic that belongs in the dustbin of history. As University of Chicago professor Richard Thaler points out, exactly zero economists endorsed the idea in a recent poll. What makes it such an idea non grata? It prevents the central bank from fighting recessions by outsourcing monetary policy decisions to how much gold we have -- which, in turn, depends on our trade balance and on how much of the shiny rock we can dig up. When we peg the dollar to gold we have to raise interest rates when gold is scarce, regardless of the state of the economy. This policy inflexibility was the major cause of the Great Depression, as governments were forced to tighten policy at the worst possible moment. It's no coincidence that the sooner a country abandoned the gold standard, the sooner it began recovering.

 

 

 

If you were tasked with creating a new currency that consumers & industries widely accept as payment, and to develope a fair and balanced economy, where would you start?

 

Not an attack here.....but, that question really doesn't mean anything here.

[RedDenver]

 

If that was the only factor, healthcare costs would have risen at a pace similar to costs of other things. But as I showed earlier, it has far outstripped home prices, car prices, gas prices, all of which are affected by currency policy.

 

It's pretty clear the gold standard - or lack thereof - is not the primary factor in out-of-control healthcare costs. This has been a bizarre tangent to this thread.

 

 

 

Oade, your notions about the gold standard are just plain wrong. Trying to stay on the gold standard is a large part of what lead to the Great Depression. Here's an article from a few years ago that explains it. And the main point:

 

Economics is often a contentious subject, but economists agree about the gold standard -- it is a barbarous relic that belongs in the dustbin of history. As University of Chicago professor Richard Thaler points out, exactly zero economists endorsed the idea in a recent poll. What makes it such an idea non grata? It prevents the central bank from fighting recessions by outsourcing monetary policy decisions to how much gold we have -- which, in turn, depends on our trade balance and on how much of the shiny rock we can dig up. When we peg the dollar to gold we have to raise interest rates when gold is scarce, regardless of the state of the economy. This policy inflexibility was the major cause of the Great Depression, as governments were forced to tighten policy at the worst possible moment. It's no coincidence that the sooner a country abandoned the gold standard, the sooner it began recovering.

 

 

 

If you were tasked with creating a new currency that consumers & industries widely accept as payment, and to develope a fair and balanced economy, where would you start?

 

I'd peg it to the US dollar. Why? Because the US dollar is the foremost international reserve currency.

[knapplc]

 

If that was the only factor, healthcare costs would have risen at a pace similar to costs of other things. But as I showed earlier, it has far outstripped home prices, car prices, gas prices, all of which are affected by currency policy.

 

It's pretty clear the gold standard - or lack thereof - is not the primary factor in out-of-control healthcare costs. This has been a bizarre tangent to this thread.

 

 

 

Oade, your notions about the gold standard are just plain wrong. Trying to stay on the gold standard is a large part of what lead to the Great Depression. Here's an article from a few years ago that explains it. And the main point:

 

Economics is often a contentious subject, but economists agree about the gold standard -- it is a barbarous relic that belongs in the dustbin of history. As University of Chicago professor Richard Thaler points out, exactly zero economists endorsed the idea in a recent poll. What makes it such an idea non grata? It prevents the central bank from fighting recessions by outsourcing monetary policy decisions to how much gold we have -- which, in turn, depends on our trade balance and on how much of the shiny rock we can dig up. When we peg the dollar to gold we have to raise interest rates when gold is scarce, regardless of the state of the economy. This policy inflexibility was the major cause of the Great Depression, as governments were forced to tighten policy at the worst possible moment. It's no coincidence that the sooner a country abandoned the gold standard, the sooner it began recovering.

 

 

 

If you were tasked with creating a new currency that consumers & industries widely accept as payment, and to develope a fair and balanced economy, where would you start?

 

 

We aren't starting a country. We're waaaaaaaaay past that part of our history. We have "the full faith & credit of the United States" backing our currency. That's more valuable than anything.