5 Unacknowledged, Unexpected, and Unavoidable Facts about Govt Spending and the Econo

[Chris]

We’re spending too much. Two wars, entitlement growth, and a massive stimulus are the results of a spending frenzy over the last decade.
We’ve got too much debt. Every level of government is in over their heads. The literal and figurative bankruptcies of cities such as Stockton, California and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania are the canaries in the coal mine.
Debt overhang kills growth. The latest studies are clear: excessive debt, sustained over long periods of time, hurts economic growth. Beyond the cost of higher interest rate payments, increasingly higher debt loads – which Gillespie calls “a ziggurat of doom” – promises to reduce opportunities for everyone.
Spending growth is driven by entitlements. Since the Great Society programs of the 1960s, the government has switched from providing infrastructure and basic services, to being a national insurance broker. The consequences of this are dire because, as statistician Nate Silver notes, "most of us don't much care for our insurance broker."
Trust in government is at historic lows. This kind of distrust is an inevitable result of a mismanaged economy. Yet it's also cause for optimism. Public discontent sow the seeds of reform, allowing the possibility of meaningful fiscal reform.



Video @ 5 Unacknowledged, Unexpected, and Unavoidable Facts about Govt Spending and the Economy (http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/04/11/gillespieondebtandspending).


I agree. :-)

[Mainecoons]

Yup, and then there's this:

http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/15/state-govermnents-viewed-favorably-as-federal-rating-hits-new-low/

Another Obama accomplishment.

[truthmatters]

who wants more war?

No one.

lets stop constantly preparing for wars we will never fight.

If we did that then alot of the spending problem would be gone

[Chris]

who wants more war?

No one.

lets stop constantly preparing for wars we will never fight.

If we did that then alot of the spending problem would be gone

Agree, cut back the Department of Offense. But that alone would not solve the spending problem.

[Greenridgeman]

Agree, cut back the Department of Offense. But that alone would not solve the spending problem.


The two wars that broke us were the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs.

Poverty and drugs won, and we still fight on foolishly, like the last Japanese on Guam.

[truthmatters]

Yes legalize pot and tax the hell out of it.

treat other drugs as a medical problem and not a criminal one.

then raise the taxes on the wealthy to the 1950s level.

It worked fine in those years to provide what we needed.


They were good times for our country

[nic34]

Gillespie and reason are Koch hacks, I wouldn't call him credible at all. The Kochs are right-wing libertarians to a point. They believe in limited government almost across the board, but they are devoted to economics and policies that benefit them in particular. When the Koch brothers get involved in politics, they support right-wing and Republican causes (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer#ixzz1Ez31TLCv). They worked very hard to elect Bush, Romney and members of Congress who supported their agenda. They support think-tanks that oppose right-wing defense and civil liberties as long as they also support right-wing economic policies.
Another way to put this is that the Kochs will happily put their money behind candidates and those who agree with their economic agenda but disagree with their social agenda. They will never put their money behind candidates or intellectuals of whom the reverse is true.

[Greenridgeman]

Yes legalize pot and tax the hell out of it.

treat other drugs as a medical problem and not a criminal one.

then raise the taxes on the wealthy to the 1950s level.

It worked fine in those years to provide what we needed.


They were good times for our country


I am not paying taxes on something I can grow in my yard when it is legal.

Question, where you even alive in the 1950's?

Do you know what tax rates the 47% that pay no tax now would be paying if '50's rates return?

Do you see infrastructure being built, and maintained, and high employment like in the '50's?

You ready to return to Men, Women and Colored restrooms, NEGROS SERVED AT BACK WINDOW signs, and the back of the bus?

Need more ELVIS?????????

And last, would you like to see individual entitlements return to '50's levels?



I don't think you know jack about the '50's.

[Common]

I am not paying taxes on something I can grow in my yard when it is legal.

Question, where you even alive in the 1950's?

Do you know what tax rates the 47% that pay no tax now would be paying if '50's rates return?

Do you see infrastructure being built, and maintained, and high employment like in the '50's?

You ready to return to Men, Women and Colored restrooms, NEGROS SERVED AT BACK WINDOW signs, and the back of the bus?

Need more ELVIS?????????

And last, would you like to see individual entitlements return to '50's levels?



I don't think you know jack about the '50's.


Your forgetting alot about the 50s Greeny. Every MAN who wanted to work had a job where he made enough to buy a house a car and feed and clothes his kids and his wife didnt have to work.

In the 50s most men that worked had company pensions and health benefits and employers shared their wealth and good fortune with their workers that made that all happen.

When you talk about the 50s more people paid taxs because THEY WERE WORKING the jobs were in America, not china.
Dont you find it peculiar that in the 50s companies treated their employees like gold, gave them good pay and benefits and still produced super rich people that made money.
Greed is destroying this country and all the broke, poor and lower middle class that run with the far right talking points and cheerlead for them are digging their own graves.

[truthmatters]

I am not paying taxes on something I can grow in my yard when it is legal.

Question, where you even alive in the 1950's?

Do you know what tax rates the 47% that pay no tax now would be paying if '50's rates return?

Do you see infrastructure being built, and maintained, and high employment like in the '50's?

You ready to return to Men, Women and Colored restrooms, NEGROS SERVED AT BACK WINDOW signs, and the back of the bus?

Need more ELVIS?????????

And last, would you like to see individual entitlements return to '50's levels?



I don't think you know jack about the '50's.

dude are you claiming higher taxes on the rich will resuract Elvis?

are you trying to reach a state beyond westboro level crazy?

[truthmatters]

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/20/249061/chart-taxes-economic-growth/



CHART: Since 1950, Lower Top Tax Rates Have Coincided With Weaker Economic Growth (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/20/249061/chart-taxes-economic-growth/)

[Mainecoons]

Gillespie and reason are Koch hacks, I wouldn't call him credible at all. The Kochs are right-wing libertarians to a point. They believe in limited government almost across the board, but they are devoted to economics and policies that benefit them in particular. When the Koch brothers get involved in politics, they support right-wing and Republican causes (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer#ixzz1Ez31TLCv). They worked very hard to elect Bush, Romney and members of Congress who supported their agenda. They support think-tanks that oppose right-wing defense and civil liberties as long as they also support right-wing economic policies.
Another way to put this is that the Kochs will happily put their money behind candidates and those who agree with their economic agenda but disagree with their social agenda. They will never put their money behind candidates or intellectuals of whom the reverse is true.

Do you ever have anything but ad hom? For a guy whose sources stink as bad as yours do, that is like the pot calling the kettle black.

You have to be a real idiot at this point to believe that this huge budget gap can be closed by soak the rich. Are you a real idiot?

[truthmatters]

so you submitt the Koch brothers are heros?

[Mainecoons]

We already know you're a real idiot. No need to keep reinforcing the impression.

[truthmatters]

you never did tell me WHY the Bush sec held back the broker rules.

what was their plan?

[nic34]

coonzie's sources are just as biased as anyone's here.... but he doesn't even know how the Kochs play his tea-party faithful like a fiddle....

[truthmatters]

the wealthy spending money to convince people to vote against their own interests

[nic34]

exactly

[truthmatters]

pretty sad when the facts mean nothing to people

[KC]

Yes legalize pot and tax the hell out of it.

treat other drugs as a medical problem and not a criminal one.

then raise the taxes on the wealthy to the 1950s level.

It worked fine in those years to provide what we needed.


They were good times for our country

I agree with the bit about legalizing pot. I disagree with taxing it. It doesn't make sense to tax it very high, especially when people can easily produce it themselves.

If pot is taxed it should be for the pot that you could theoretically buy at a convenience store, at the general sales tax rate for whatever state it's in.

[Mainecoons]

Nicwit, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel when you start following TruthTatters around.

Now, can you address in any substantive way whatsoever the OP?

Probably not.

It is a very old adage of the study of history and politics that no form of government can survive - in the long term - without pandering to public opinion. That is why the more despotic the government, the greater the effort they make to “mould” public opinion to their own purposes. All such governments are intent on making it as difficult as they possibly can for their subjects to hear the truth. In fact, they go further than that. All such governments are intent on creating a situation in which most of their subjects would not recognise the truth if they DID hear it.

[Mainecoons]

BTW, I also want to compliment Nic and TT for being so dumb that they make Cigar look good and I'm actually missing him.

An accomplishment for which even Barack would be proud.

[Chris]

OK, OK, let's stick to the topic and not each other, please.

[Chris]

The two wars that broke us were the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs.

Poverty and drugs won, and we still fight on foolishly, like the last Japanese on Guam.

That was good! Why aren't the libs responding to it?

[Chris]

Gillespie and reason are Koch hacks, I wouldn't call him credible at all. The Kochs are right-wing libertarians to a point. They believe in limited government almost across the board, but they are devoted to economics and policies that benefit them in particular. When the Koch brothers get involved in politics, they support right-wing and Republican causes (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer#ixzz1Ez31TLCv). They worked very hard to elect Bush, Romney and members of Congress who supported their agenda. They support think-tanks that oppose right-wing defense and civil liberties as long as they also support right-wing economic policies.
Another way to put this is that the Kochs will happily put their money behind candidates and those who agree with their economic agenda but disagree with their social agenda. They will never put their money behind candidates or intellectuals of whom the reverse is true.

Wow, nic, the ad hom had me going for a moment.

I take it then you don't disagree with the OP at all.

[Mainecoons]

You can take it he can't address it in substance, hence the ad hom rant.

:grin:

[bladimz]

That was good! Why aren't the libs responding to it?
You can't talk about failed "wars", like the ones on drugs and poverty without including the hugely failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The resulting financial and diplomatic damages will be with us for years to come.

The case against drugs is becoming more and more obvious to most americans. Maybe with any luck at all, that nightmare will be over very soon. Growing pot is a great alternative if you have a backyard to cultivate your own. But there's a ton of people who either don't have the ground, the desire or the time to do their own. They're the ones who will truck on down to their corner smoke shop to pick up their stash, paying the price tax included.

Pot, once decriminalized, will be a whole new industry that will benefit this country's economy almost overnight.

Poverty has also won, unfortunately. And that's a shame. Poverty doesn't have to be. If not for greed, avarice, and political games, poverty around the world, would almost be a thing of the past.

[Chris]

You can't talk about failed "wars", like the ones on drugs and poverty without including the hugely failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The resulting financial and diplomatic damages will be with us for years to come.

The case against drugs is becoming more and more obvious to most americans. Maybe with any luck at all, that nightmare will be over very soon. Growing pot is a great alternative if you have a backyard to cultivate your own. But there's a ton of people who either don't have the ground, the desire or the time to do their own. They're the ones who will truck on down to their corner smoke shop to pick up their stash, paying the price tax included.

Pot, once decriminalized, will be a whole new industry that will benefit this country's economy almost overnight.

Poverty has also won, unfortunately. And that's a shame. Poverty doesn't have to be. If not for greed, avarice, and political games, poverty around the world, would almost be a thing of the past.


You can't talk about failed "wars", like the ones on drugs and poverty without including the hugely failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Agree. That was one of my earlier replies: "Agree, cut back the Department of Offense. But that alone would not solve the spending problem." It is one part of the problem:

http://i.snag.gy/kPLqv.jpg

Perhaps in all these areas our government should be less interventionist.

[lynn]

The government should get out of the healthcare business all together in order for healthcare cost to decrease.

[Chris]

And for innovation to increase.

[nic34]

And to drive up prices....

[Mainecoons]

Which of course aren't going up far faster than the rate of general inflation right now. . . .

If you're living under a rock or are otherwise brain dead. Which one are you, Nic?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-21/health-care-costs-rise-faster-than-u-s-inflation-rate.html

[nic34]

Gerald Friedman, Professor of economics, University of Massachusetts-Amherst

“While providing superior health care,” the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act (HR 676), “would save as much as $570 billion now wasted on administrative overhead and monopoly profits. A single payer system would also make health-care financing dramatically more progressive by replacing fixed, income-invariant health-care expenditures with progressive taxes.”

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-system-cost

Private insurance companies that just weed out the sick to maximize profit, is not the answer.

[nic34]

If you're living under a rock or are otherwise brain dead. Which one are you, Nic?



Again, sourpuss only has insults.

[Mainecoons]

Can't even answer a question that simple, eh?

Your post can be classified as "woulda, shoulda, coulda.


“While providing superior health care,” the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act (HR 676), “would save as much as $570 billion now wasted on administrative overhead and monopoly profits. A single payer system would also make health-care financing dramatically more progressive by replacing fixed, income-invariant health-care expenditures with progressive taxes.”
Do you comprehend the difference between op-ed speculating by a liberal fool like yourself versus data which shows medical prices rising faster than inflation?

Physicians for a National Health Program. That's almost as unbiased a source as the Daily Kos.

[Chris]

Gerald Friedman, Professor of economics, University of Massachusetts-Amherst

“While providing superior health care,” the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act (HR 676), “would save as much as $570 billion now wasted on administrative overhead and monopoly profits. A single payer system would also make health-care financing dramatically more progressive by replacing fixed, income-invariant health-care expenditures with progressive taxes.”

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-system-cost

Private insurance companies that just weed out the sick to maximize profit, is not the answer.

Private single payers would save even more.

Maximizing profits demands finding efficiencies that reduce prices and attract more customers. Government is anti-efficiency, without profits there's no incentive.

Insurance isn't insurance if it covers known problems. What auto insurance company would cover a totaled car--yea, pay me $200 first first month's premium and we'll send you a check for $20K.

[Mainecoons]

It is a very old adage of the study of history and politics that no form of government can survive - in the long term - without pandering to public opinion. That is why the more despotic the government, the greater the effort they make to “mould” public opinion to their own purposes. All such governments are intent on making it as difficult as they possibly can for their subjects to hear the truth. In fact, they go further than that. All such governments are intent on creating a situation in which most of their subjects would not recognise the truth if they DID hear it.

[Greenridgeman]

Gerald Friedman, Professor of economics, University of Massachusetts-Amherst

“While providing superior health care,” the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act (HR 676), “would save as much as $570 billion now wasted on administrative overhead and monopoly profits. A single payer system would also make health-care financing dramatically more progressive by replacing fixed, income-invariant health-care expenditures with progressive taxes.”

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-system-cost

Private insurance companies that just weed out the sick to maximize profit, is not the answer.



I've never had anything denied, raised three kids, am now retired, paid and am paying now.

My only complaint about HC is that dental is not considered part of "health".

Tell that to someone facing root canals, crowns, abcesses, etc..

[Agravan]

The government should get out of the healthcare business all together in order for healthcare cost to decrease.


And to drive up prices....

Obviously you have a reading comprehension problem or did not bother to read the thread.

[lynn]

Video @ 5 Unacknowledged, Unexpected, and Unavoidable Facts about Govt Spending and the Economy (http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/04/11/gillespieondebtandspending).


I agree. :-)


A fact - the government would not have started those "entitlement programs" if they weren't going to be able to funnel the excess funds into their own pet projects. I seriously doubt that the tax payers would vote for them if they stayed strictly to defense and foreign affairs. We all have paid dearly for those social programs with millions never collected anything from them.

The government since the 80's is out of control in spending and the people that represent us are completely out of touch with society. When only a small number of individuals that must have a specific number in their bank account in order to even be considered a candidate doesn't leave much hope that they even care about the nation's citizens who work hard for a living.

Did anyone ask us before our government signed those NAFTA agreements giving our U.S. corporations the path to leave the U.S.? There are consequences for those actions and it results in high unemployment, increase in welfare, etc. The government is totally responsible for allowing the predicament we are in right now. They created the financial crisis and the housing crisis. They are also not doing anything to provide incentives for new jobs to emerge here. They are given over one million immigrants their citizenship knowing there are no jobs for them.

They are shoving health insurance mandates down our throat with getting less in return and more money going out. You can certainly understand why trust in our government is at an all time low because they are complete idiots.

[Dr. Who]

Private single payers would save even more.

Maximizing profits demands finding efficiencies that reduce prices and attract more customers. Government is anti-efficiency, without profits there's no incentive.

Insurance isn't insurance if it covers known problems. What auto insurance company would cover a totaled car--yea, pay me $200 first first month's premium and we'll send you a check for $20K.
I have to admit to being a fan of the single payor system. It is just not logical to assume that healthcare is cheaper when you introduce insurance brokers who must make a commission and insurance companies that must make signficant profits, else why bother? The government could set up a corporation which would act very similarly to an insurance company. It could have a board of directors, a CEO, a CFO etc. The mandate of the corporation would be to actuarially assess what premium rates would guarantee solvency and administer claims. The corporation would advise the government what rate of premium to charge on payroll or what premium rates must be subsidized by the government for those living on assistance. The employees of the corporation would not work for the government, nor would they be unionized. Any profits generated would be recycled into healthcare, thus avoiding "death panels".

[Chris]

You mean the way government set up fannie may and freddie mac, two gems of government corporations.

EXplain, dr who, just how such a socialist entity would solve the economic calculation and coordination problems?

[Peter1469]

Explain how the cost of LASIK and plastic surgery has dropped and not risen. It wasn't because the government intervened; it wasn't because insurance companies got involved.

[Dr. Who]

You mean the way government set up fannie may and freddie mac, two gems of government corporations.

EXplain, dr who, just how such a socialist entity would solve the economic calculation and coordination problems?
I would expect that someone could take into consideration the mistakes of the past. If the corporate mandate is that it must operate on a cost recovery basis - i.e. it cannot pay out in a given year more than it receives in premiums, else the CEO's head rolls, I expect that it could manage to do the job. Additionally, the CEO's performance bonus and anyone elses could be tied to the success of the corporation. That might even be better than the real world. There would be a top down incentive to remain solvent. If you run it like a real business and not a government charity, it could work.

[Chris]

I would expect that someone could take into consideration the mistakes of the past. If the corporate mandate is that it must operate on a cost recovery basis - i.e. it cannot pay out in a given year more than it receives in premiums, else the CEO's head rolls, I expect that it could manage to do the job. Additionally, the CEO's performance bonus and anyone elses could be tied to the success of the corporation. That might even be better than the real world. There would be a top down incentive to remain solvent. If you run it like a real business and not a government charity, it could work.

What you're proposing resembles fascism.



If you run it like a real business and not a government charity, it could work.

Then run it as a business.

[Dr. Who]

What you're proposing resembles fascism.


Then run it as a business.
It's not fascistic to expect a business to forecast its anticipated costs annually or to demand that a CEO take responsibility for the success or failure of that enterprise. That is the real world. In the insurance world, that's why they hire actuaries and underwriters. For the vicissitudes of what cannot be predicted, there is reinsurance. Thus if the CEO has all of his/her ducks in a row, there will be no shortfall on the annual statement. The only difference between this and regular insurance companies is that the excess profits are not paid to shareholders nor are hefty commissions paid to brokers.

[Chris]

It's not fascistic to expect a business to forecast its anticipated costs annually or to demand that a CEO take responsibility for the success or failure of that enterprise. That is the real world. In the insurance world, that's why they hire actuaries and underwriters. For the vicissitudes of what cannot be predicted, there is reinsurance. Thus if the CEO has all of his/her ducks in a row, there will be no shortfall on the annual statement. The only difference between this and regular insurance companies is that the excess profits are not paid to shareholders nor are hefty commissions paid to brokers.

All true for the private sector. Not true for government. The incentive of government is not to profit by producing what consumers want but in spending all if nor more of their funding to ensure the same or more funding next budget. Medicare is a huge failure.

[Dr. Who]

All true for the private sector. Not true for government. The incentive of government is not to profit by producing what consumers want but in spending all if nor more of their funding to ensure the same or more funding next budget. Medicare is a huge failure.
I can prove to you that a government can successfully run an insurance company:
http://www.sgi.sk.ca/about/newsreleases/2013/annualreports.html

Surely not only Canadians are capable of running a Provincially (State) owned company and make a profit, while still keeping premiums down?

[Peter1469]

I can prove to you that a government can successfully run an insurance company:
http://www.sgi.sk.ca/about/newsreleases/2013/annualreports.html

Surely not only Canadians are capable of running a Provincially (State) owned company and make a profit, while still keeping premiums down?


I don't think that any state in the US can do it without screwing it up. Eh...?

[Dr. Who]

I don't think that any state in the US can do it without screwing it up. Eh...?
Perhaps delegates can be sent to Canada to learn how.

[Peter1469]

Perhaps delegates can be sent to Canada to learn how.

It is not a matter of learning how. It is a matter of not being corrupt.

[Dr. Who]

It is not a matter of learning how. It is a matter of not being corrupt.
Corruption only flourishes where there is no or little oversight. Canadians are not inherently less corrupt than Americans. They just have more oversight.

[roadmaster]

Canadians Would have worked here a lot better with the way they handle it.

[Chris]

Corruption only flourishes where there is no or little oversight. Canadians are not inherently less corrupt than Americans. They just have more oversight.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Or as Madison put it in Federalist 51: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

[Dr. Who]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Or as Madison put it in Federalist 51: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
Nevertheless Chris, apparently someone is watching the watchers in Saskatchewan, and it can work.

[Chris]

Nevertheless Chris, apparently someone is watching the watchers in Saskatchewan, and it can work.

That it has worked better in CA than in the US does not mean that is has worked, nor does it mean that their is not a better way.

[Dr. Who]

That it has worked better in CA than in the US does not mean that is has worked, nor does it mean that their is not a better way.
SGI didn't just spring into being last year. It was founded in 1945.

[Chris]

SGI didn't just spring into being last year. It was founded in 1945.

And how old's the Constitution. Would we follow that we'd be fine.

[Dr. Who]

And how old's the Constitution. Would we follow that we'd be fine.
Come on Chris. A socialistic organization has been working successfully for 68 years, though I'm sure it went through some evolution over time. It proves that it is possible and cheaper than private enterprise. What is really interesting about SGI is that as a consumer you choose either tort coverage - i.e. you can sue, but you don't get accident benefit (section A coverage) or you choose section A only. Section A coverage provides you with up to $2,000,000 in first party no-fault injury coverage plus 10% of whatever income is not covered by basic injury coverage. This is without suing anyone. Oh and you also get liability coverage from $1,000,000 to $5,000,000.

[Chris]

Highest Auto Insurance Rates in Canada Found in Ontario, BC, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/The-Fraser-Institute-Highest-iw-2150082711.html):


Government-run auto insurance monopolies in BC, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba continue to charge some of the highest auto insurance rates in Canada, concludes a new study released today by the Fraser Institute, Canada's leading public policy think-tank.

..."These results are consistent with previous reports that suggest government-run auto insurance monopolies are less efficient than auto insurance provided by a regulated, competitive market," said Neil Mohindra, director of the Fraser Institute's Centre for Financial Policy Studies and co-author of The Personal Cost and Affordability of Automobile Insurance in Canada, 2011 Edition.

..."Drivers in BC, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba should be asking why their governments have eliminated consumer choice and are forcing them to purchase auto insurance at rates higher than necessary."

Who, you call that success? Inefficiency driving up costs?

[Mainecoons]

Whoops!

:rofl:

[bladimz]

Highest Auto Insurance Rates in Canada Found in Ontario, BC, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/The-Fraser-Institute-Highest-iw-2150082711.html):



Who, you call that success? Inefficiency driving up costs?
Dr. Who, i think, was talking about health care insurance. You respond with a post about auto insurance.

2393

[Mainecoons]

Really? You think this is about health insurance?


Come on Chris. A socialistic organization has been working successfully for 68 years, though I'm sure it went through some evolution over time. It proves that it is possible and cheaper than private enterprise. What is really interesting about SGI is that as a consumer you choose either tort coverage - i.e. you can sue, but you don't get accident benefit (section A coverage) or you choose section A only. Section A coverage provides you with up to $2,000,000 in first party no-fault injury coverage plus 10% of whatever income is not covered by basic injury coverage. This is without suing anyone. Oh and you also get liability coverage from $1,000,000 to $5,000,000.

Unbelievable. :rofl:

[GetaGrip]

coonzie's sources are just as biased as anyone's here.... but he doesn't even know how the Kochs play his tea-party faithful like a fiddle....

I would be more worried about Soros than the koch bro's. Ask anybody in the UK about that.

[bladimz]

Really? You think this is about health insurance?



Unbelievable. :rofl:[/COLOR]The original discussion was strictly addressing the Canadian health care system vs. the US current "free market" health insurance scam. Wonk.

2394

[Dr. Who]

Dr. Who, i think, was talking about health care insurance. You respond with a post about auto insurance.

2393
Doesn't matter. It was an example of insurance run by a government. The concept of insurance, whether it be life, property or casualty is the same and involves all of the same principles. The Section B - accident benefit portion of auto insurance is almost identical to life insurance. It administers health care benefits.

[Dr. Who]

The original discussion was strictly addressing the Canadian health care system vs. the US current "free market" health insurance scam. Wonk.

2394
Yes, but there are other models that may be more suited to the US culture, given the automatic distrust of anything administered directly by the government. This model comprises non-profit with independence from the government payroll. Surely more palatable to those who consider government administration as a giant black hole where money simply disappears without showing any apparent benefit.

[Dr. Who]

Come on Chris. A socialistic organization has been working successfully for 68 years, though I'm sure it went through some evolution over time. It proves that it is possible and cheaper than private enterprise. What is really interesting about SGI is that as a consumer you choose either tort coverage - i.e. you can sue, but you don't get accident benefit (section B coverage) or you choose section A only. Section B coverage provides you with up to $2,000,000 in first party no-fault injury coverage plus 10% of whatever income is not covered by basic injury coverage. This is without suing anyone. Oh and you also get liability coverage from $1,000,000 to $5,000,000.

[Mainecoons]

The original discussion was strictly addressing the Canadian health care system vs. the US current "free market" health insurance scam. Wonk.

2394

I guess you're telling us you were unable to read the quoted part and figure out that Dr. Who was using a government car insurance agency as some sort of an example. It is not as if it is unusual for topics to diverge from the original here.

Fair enough. We've seen many times on this board that your reading comprehension isn't the best. Maybe you'll be able to figure it out from WIKI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatchewan_Government_Insurance

Now wipe the egg off your face, genius.

:rofl:

[Common]

I would be more worried about Soros than the koch bro's. Ask anybody in the UK about that.

Im alot more worried about guys like Simon Adelsen who gave over a 100,000,000 to teaparty candidates because he was pissed off his casino activities were being investigated for criminality. I find a guy that can throw around a 100 million because he feels hes above being investigated alot more scarey than soros or the Koch bros.

[Mainecoons]

I see you're quoting yourself, Who. Did you not understand what Chris was telling you, that your supposed government success actually results in its captive customers paying considerably more for car insurance than they would if it was provided by the private sector?

In other words, your example FAILS. :grin:

[Greenridgeman]

That it has worked better in CA than in the US does not mean that is has worked, nor does it mean that their is not a better way.



Excuse me, CA is US Postal Service abbreviation for California.

Is it also commonly used as an abbreviation for Canada?

Never saw it used that way before.

[Dr. Who]

I see you're quoting yourself, Who. Did you not understand what Chris was telling you, that your supposed government success actually results in its captive customers paying considerably more for car insurance than they would if it was provided by the private sector?

In other words, your example FAILS. :grin:
The quote was accidental and then I was unable to delete it.

At any rate, Saskatchewan consumers actually pay lower premiums for car insurance than the private sector would charge and they also get far more extensive first party benefits (Up to appx $6M per person) and expensive litigation is kept to a minimum. In fact Saskatchewan consumers who wish to avail themselves of the tort system are only required to purchase statutory minimum liability coverage from the government, which is $200,000 (Section A) and provides up to $24,440/person for non-catastrophic injury, up to $183,308 for catastrophic injury (Section B). There are private sector carriers operating in Saskatchewan which provide excess coverage for those who want additional liability limits. Only .6% of the population have opted for the tort system.

[Chris]

Excuse me, CA is US Postal Service abbreviation for California.

Is it also commonly used as an abbreviation for Canada?

Never saw it used that way before.

Yes.

[Chris]

The quote was accidental and then I was unable to delete it.

At any rate, Saskatchewan consumers actually pay lower premiums for car insurance than the private sector would charge and they also get far more extensive first party benefits (Up to appx $6M per person) and expensive litigation is kept to a minimum. In fact Saskatchewan consumers who wish to avail themselves of the tort system are only required to purchase statutory minimum liability coverage from the government, which is $200,000 (Section A) and provides up to $24,440/person for non-catastrophic injury, up to $183,308 for catastrophic injury (Section B). There are private sector carriers operating in Saskatchewan which provide excess coverage for those who want additional liability limits. Only .6% of the population have opted for the tort system.

My source says higher rates. Can you source your data, please.

[Chris]

Im alot more worried about guys like Simon Adelsen who gave over a 100,000,000 to teaparty candidates because he was pissed off his casino activities were being investigated for criminality. I find a guy that can throw around a 100 million because he feels hes above being investigated alot more scarey than soros or the Koch bros.

Elsewhere you complain about unsourced data. Can you source this claim? Can you also get the name right, it was Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam. What I'm particularly interested in is substantiation of the claim over $100M went to tea party candidates, especially when the tea party doesn't have candidates--do you mean tea party-endorsed candidates? THen demonstrate that.

[Greenridgeman]

Yes.

Seems that would cause postal confusion if people did not use zip codes, or whatever code they use up there.

[Greenridgeman]

Elsewhere you complain about unsourced data. Can you source this claim? Can you also get the name right, it was Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam. What I'm particularly interested in is substantiation of the claim over $100M went to tea party candidates, especially when the tea party doesn't have candidates--do you mean tea party-endorsed candidates? THen demonstrate that.


Harry Reid showed Tea Party what they could do with their money, he had the pimps, whores and gamblers vote.

[Chris]

Seems that would cause postal confusion if people did not use zip codes, or whatever code they use up there.

But you would use zips codes. Or context, as in "TX GDP is better than CA's" vs "the US economy is better than CA's".

[Chris]

Harry Reid showed Tea Party what they could do with their money, he had the pimps, whores and gamblers vote.

What Tea party?

[Dr. Who]

My source says higher rates. Can you source your data, please.
Methodology of calculating rates varies and sometimes leads to false comparisons:

http://www2.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/business/story.html?id=5924fd36-f69b-49f2-a91c-bdbb2adf427b

[Greenridgeman]

What Tea party?

The local Nevada tea party type individuals and loose groups, Mr. Exacto.

You know exactly what I meant, probably not another Senator that is elected mainly by one or two cities based on vice.

Money can't beat the particular coalition of pimps, whores and gamblers concentrated there when their bread and butter is on the line.

[Chris]

Methodology of calculating rates varies and sometimes leads to false comparisons:

http://www2.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/business/story.html?id=5924fd36-f69b-49f2-a91c-bdbb2adf427b


Neil Mohindra, director of the Fraser Institute's Centre for Financial Policy Studies and co-author of the report, said the study looks at the average cost of auto insurance premiums, relative to income, to determine affordability.

"The emphasis of the study is affordability, the extent to which drivers can easily afford to buy auto insurance," he said. "So we look at the actual numbers in terms of what the cost is in average net earned premiums. In order to look at affordability, we look at other elements, such as GDP per person."

The study estimates the average cost of personal passenger auto insurance premiums in all 10 provinces for 2009 using publicly available data. The cost of auto insurance is also measured by calculating the average premium as a percentage of GDP per person, personal income per person and personal disposable income per person.

In all cases, Ontario, along with the public auto insurance monopolies of B.C., Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, are among the most expensive, the report said.

But a composite index used by SGI, based on methodology developed by the Consumers' Association of Canada, indicates almost the exact opposite of the Fraser Institute study.

In contrast to the Fraser study, the index shows Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec and B.C., which have public auto insurance systems, have the four lowest rates in the country.

According to the composite index, Saskatchewan had the lowest rates at $970, followed by Manitoba at $1,024, Quebec at $1,432 and B.C. at $1,436.

The index, which appeared in the 2011 provincial budget, is "based on the actual insurance rates quoted for what the driver would pay in each jurisdiction if they had the same car, the same coverage, same claims history and driving record at a consistent point in time."

Three points.

One, the Fraser Institute data is (a) based on real data and (b) measures what you'd expect to measure.

Two, SGI data is based not on actual premiums but quotes. It's like claiming a multiplier effect based on CBO projections.

Three, SGI has a conflict of interest. The notion of watchdog doesn't include watching yourself. FI is an outside organization.

[Chris]

The local Nevada tea party type individuals and loose groups, Mr. Exacto.

You know exactly what I meant, probably not another Senator that is elected mainly by one or two cities based on vice.

Money can't beat the particular coalition of pimps, whores and gamblers concentrated there when their bread and butter is on the line.

Oh good, another telling me what I think. I learn a lot about myself that way.

The tea party, or better, tea parties, are organized down at the voting district level, not the state.

So what was it Reid showed them?

[Dr. Who]

Three points.

One, the Fraser Institute data is (a) based on real data and (b) measures what you'd expect to measure.

Two, SGI data is based not on actual premiums but quotes. It's like claiming a multiplier effect based on CBO projections.

Three, SGI has a conflict of interest. The notion of watchdog doesn't include watching yourself. FI is an outside organization.
The SGI figures are
"based on the actual insurance rates quoted for what the driver would pay in each jurisdiction if they had the same car, the same coverage, same claims history and driving record at a consistent point in time." as opposed to
"taking all the Auto Fund premiums and dividing them by their estimate of how many vehicles we have. . But they're using our total premium number, which includes commercial vehicles, taxis, school buses."
Rate based comparisons also don't measure the quality of the product being sold.

[Chris]

The SGI figures are as opposed to Rate based comparisons also don't measure the quality of the product being sold.

So you side with SGI's cherry picking data?

How do you measure quality?

[Dr. Who]

So you side with SGI's cherry picking data?

How do you measure quality?
If I charged you $700 a year for $1M in liability and $50K in personal injury coverage vs $700 a year for $1M in liability and up to $6M per person in personal injury coverage, which do you suppose is the better product?

[Chris]

If I charged you $700 a year for $1M in liability and $50K in personal injury coverage vs $700 a year for $1M in liability and up to $6M per person in personal injury coverage, which do you suppose is the better product?

But your government solution offers no choice to choose from. Straw men don't count.

[Chris]

"BC, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba are dominated by government-run auto insurance monopolies that attach social goals to insurance, rather than trying to provide consumers with the best value," said Brett J. Skinner, Fraser Institute director of insurance policy research and co-author of Auto Insurance Market Quality Index 2010: Comparison of International Auto Insurance Markets.

"While supporters of government-run auto insurance claim these programs produce lower costs for drivers, a comparison with other jurisdictions shows public auto insurance is consistently among the worst performers within almost all measures of market quality, including cost and affordability."

The report, Auto Insurance Market Quality Index 2010: Comparison of International Auto Insurance Markets, assesses the performance of auto insurance markets in 10 Canadian provinces and 50 U.S. states using data from 2003 to 2005, the most recent years for which complete data were available across all jurisdictions. The study used publicly available data obtained from state government insurance regulators in the U.S., annual reports of public auto insurers in Canada, and data from the Insurance Bureau of Canada. The data focused only on private personal auto insurance – excluding commercial and recreational vehicles.

Using 13 variables, the study measured and compared the performance of auto insurance markets and categorized the results into five indices: cost and pricing fairness, choice, business climate, regulatory severity, and overall market quality.
In terms of overall market performance, Canadian provinces hold down seven of the bottom 10 rankings for 2005, led by Saskatchewan with the worst overall score (60th). Manitoba followed (59th), then British Columbia (58th), Ontario (57th), New Brunswick (56th), Nova Scotia (55th), New Jersey (54th), and Quebec (53rd).

@ Lack of Auto Insurance Competition in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and BC Saddles Consumers With High Rates and Limited Choice (http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Fraser-Institute-Lack-Auto-Insurance-Competition-Manitoba-Saskatchewan-BC-Saddles-1366365.htm)

[Dr. Who]

@ Lack of Auto Insurance Competition in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and BC Saddles Consumers With High Rates and Limited Choice (http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Fraser-Institute-Lack-Auto-Insurance-Competition-Manitoba-Saskatchewan-BC-Saddles-1366365.htm)

Since I find Fraser Institute data suspect, given their pro-competition and anti-government control of business stance, I can only assume they are skewing the data to favor private sector ownership. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute. What they don't include in their data is what constitutes minimum statutory limits in each state or province:

US: (amounts in thousands) http://personalinsure.about.com/cs/vehicleratings/a/blautominimum.htm
The first two numbers apply to third party bodily injury, per person and total per accident, and the next number applies to property damage.)

Alaska 50/100/25
Alabama 25/50/25
Arkansas 25/50/25
Arizona 15/30/10
California 15/30/5
Colorado 25/50/15
Connecticut 20/40/10
Delaware 15/30/10
Florida 10/20/10
Georgia 25/50/25
Hawaii 20/40/10
Idaho 20/50/15
Illinois 20/40/15
Indiana 25/50/10
Iowa 20/40/15
Kansas 25/50/10
Kentucky 25/50/10
Louisiana 15/30/25
Maine 50/100/25
Maryland 30/60/15
Massachusetts 20/40/5
Michigan 20/40/10
Minnesota 30/60/10
Mississippi 25/50/25
Missouri 25/50/10
Montana 25/50/10
Nebraska 25/50/25
New Hampshire 25/50/25
New Jersey 15/30/5
New Mexico 25/50/10
Nevada 15/30/10
New York 25/50/10
North Carolina 30/60/25
North Dakota 25/50/25
Ohio 12.5/25/7.5
Oklahoma 25/50/25
Oregon 25/50/20
Pennsylvania 15/30/5
Rhode Island 25/50/25
South Carolina 25/50/25
South Dakota 25/50/25
Tennessee 25/50/15
Texas 30/60/25
Utah 25/65/15
Virginia 25/50/20
Vermont 25/50/10
Washington 25/50/10
Wisconsin 50/100/55
West Virginia 20/40/10
Wyoming 25/100/15

Canada:
Minimum statutory third party liability coverage for all Provinces except Quebec: $200,000 per accident. http://drivinglaws.aaa.com/laws/liability-laws/ Quebec statutory minimum is $50K.

Clearly the cost for the higher limits will be greater in Canada than in the US.

[Chris]

Since I find Fraser Institute data suspect, given their pro-competition and anti-government control of business stance, I can only assume they are skewing the data to favor private sector ownership.

Ad hom.

US and CA, apples and oranges.

[Dr. Who]

Ad hom.

US and CA, apples and oranges.
No more ad hom than your statement that SGI is cherry picking data. Also as comparing the US and Canada is like comparing apples and oranges, doesn't make much sense that the Fraser Institute is combining the data, does it? In general auto insurance is more expensive in Canada simply because in some jurisdictions like Ontario, and Saskatchewan they are also required to provide very extensive Personal Injury benefits. This limits the cost of litigation and takes the strain off of the Provincial Health care systems to pay for catastrophic injuries.

[Chris]

No more ad hom than your statement that SGI is cherry picking data. Also as comparing the US and Canada is like comparing apples and oranges, doesn't make much sense that the Fraser Institute is combining the data, does it? In general auto insurance is more expensive in Canada simply because in some jurisdictions like Ontario, and Saskatchewan they are also required to provide very extensive Personal Injury benefits. This limits the cost of litigation and takes the strain off of the Provincial Health care systems to pay for catastrophic injuries.

Who, you dismissed FI because of who they are. I dismissed not SGI but their complaint about FI's research on them because they cherry picked data. Both are logical fallacies.

FI compared CA provinces.

[Greenridgeman]

Oh good, another telling me what I think. I learn a lot about myself that way.

The tea party, or better, tea parties, are organized down at the voting district level, not the state.

So what was it Reid showed them?


He showed them the peasants cannot unseat the elite with money alone, and unions can turn out voters that don't exist.

[Dr. Who]

Who, you dismissed FI because of who they are. I dismissed not SGI but their complaint about FI's research on them because they cherry picked data. Both are logical fallacies.

FI compared CA provinces.
I didn't so much dismiss them, but stated that I suspect that they have an agenda. They are generally anti-government in their articles. SGI complained about FI's methodology and felt the facts were skewed by extraneous data.
There are only 10 provinces in Canada - how then can they rank
In terms of overall market performance, Canadian provinces hold down seven of the bottom 10 rankings for 2005, led by Saskatchewan with the worst overall score (60th). Manitoba followed (59th), then British Columbia (58th), Ontario (57th), New Brunswick (56th), Nova Scotia (55th), New Jersey (54th), and Quebec (53rd). Sounds like an international comparison to me. Secondarily, as Saskatchewan Auto insurance purchasers have the choice to opt for the ostensibly cheaper tort insurance model, but as they generally don't, they must feel that they are receiving value for premium. Were it so uncompetetive, wouldn't they choose otherwise, yet only .6 percent so choose. Even FI noted:
Mohindra conceded coverage and benefits are not included in the Fraser Institute study. "Our study looks strictly at affordability," he said. "We don't look at coverage. We look at whether the average individual can afford insurance and what is the cost to that individual. FI also did not carve out the data for those who purchase under the tort only model. Thus the data is skewed. Canadian auto insurance is more expensive than US insurance in general, simply because higher third party limits are legislated. IMO I'd rather pay a little more, knowing that if I was catastrophically injured I would be covered for millions of dollars, rather than knowing that the 25-50K in coverage or less that I would get from my carrier would hardly cover a week's hospital stay and if I sued, the most that I would get would be a paltry $100K maybe.

[Chris]

He showed them the peasants cannot unseat the elite with money alone, and unions can turn out voters that don't exist.

Lost me. The tea parties don't use money like that, it's grassroots.

[Chris]

I didn't so much dismiss them, but stated that I suspect that they have an agenda. They are generally anti-government in their articles. SGI complained about FI's methodology and felt the facts were skewed by extraneous data.
There are only 10 provinces in Canada - how then can they rank Sounds like an international comparison to me. Secondarily, as Saskatchewan Auto insurance purchasers have the choice to opt for the ostensibly cheaper tort insurance model, but as they generally don't, they must feel that they are receiving value for premium. Were it so uncompetetive, wouldn't they choose otherwise, yet only .6 percent so choose. Even FI noted: FI also did not carve out the data for those who purchase under the tort only model. Thus the data is skewed. Canadian auto insurance is more expensive than US insurance in general, simply because higher third party limits are legislated. IMO I'd rather pay a little more, knowing that if I was catastrophically injured I would be covered for millions of dollars, rather than knowing that the 25-50K in coverage or less that I would get from my carrier would hardly cover a week's hospital stay and if I sued, the most that I would get would be a paltry $100K maybe.


I suspect that they have an agenda.

And I pointed out that's a logical fallacy known as ad hominem.


Sounds like an international comparison to me.

There were two different studies. One compared SGI with other provinces in terms of cost. The other compared internationally in terms of quality.


Canadian auto insurance is more expensive than US insurance in general, simply because higher third party limits are legislated.

This the problem is once again government and its regulations.

[lynn]

You can't talk about failed "wars", like the ones on drugs and poverty without including the hugely failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The resulting financial and diplomatic damages will be with us for years to come.

The case against drugs is becoming more and more obvious to most americans. Maybe with any luck at all, that nightmare will be over very soon. Growing pot is a great alternative if you have a backyard to cultivate your own. But there's a ton of people who either don't have the ground, the desire or the time to do their own. They're the ones who will truck on down to their corner smoke shop to pick up their stash, paying the price tax included.

Pot, once decriminalized, will be a whole new industry that will benefit this country's economy almost overnight.

Poverty has also won, unfortunately. And that's a shame. Poverty doesn't have to be. If not for greed, avarice, and political games, poverty around the world, would almost be a thing of the past.


They never intended on winning the war against drugs because its a profitable business for government and to maintain employment for those that fight it. The poverty war wins for who?

[Chris]

They never intended on winning the war against drugs because its a profitable business for government and to maintain employment for those that fight it. The poverty war wins for who?

I'd say the Poverty War is just as profitable as the Drug War.

War is a Racket, Smedley D. Butler.