|
|
#91
10-08-2007, 06:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
Also regarding unemployment you realize that full employment does not mean an unemployment rate of 0. NATURAL RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT "Full employment" does not mean 100 percent employment. For various reasons, the unemployment rate cannot be reduced to zero, if only because people are always being fired, laid off or moving between jobs. But even granting that unemployment can never be completely eliminated, it still might be possible to ensure that anyone searching for a job can find one reasonably quickly. Economists call this happy state of affairs "full employment." [/ QUOTE ] Yah. That would be why I referred to a "certain level of unemployment" (3-7% according to most right-wing theorists, IIRC) for optimum profitability. I did not refer to unemployment itself. Keep trying... 
|
|
#92
10-08-2007, 06:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention the free ride everyone else is getting from the USA subsidizing their drug research costs. natedogg [/ QUOTE ] Damn. Good point. Also, how many boob jobs are being counted in those costs?
|
|
#93
10-08-2007, 06:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Not to mention the free ride everyone else is getting from the USA subsidizing their drug research costs. natedogg [/ QUOTE ] Damn. Good point. Also, how many boob jobs are being counted in those costs? [/ QUOTE ] Who cares..well worth it at any price!
|
|
#94
10-08-2007, 06:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Not to mention the free ride everyone else is getting from the USA subsidizing their drug research costs. natedogg [/ QUOTE ] Damn. Good point. Also, how many boob jobs are being counted in those costs? [/ QUOTE ] this is something most self-righteous euro health-socialists don't understand. if the USA converts to a similar system you can say goodbye to any new life-saving drugs. The rest of the world goes down if we do. Viva la socialism! Morons. natedogg
|
|
#95
10-08-2007, 07:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The willingness of people in the US to pay more to a middleman than purchase directly is bemusing. Why do US voters willingly spend so much for so little? This is the top 30 countries in the world ranked by life expectancy with spending on health care plotted over it (year 2000). You're spending 3 times as much on average to come 27th. And you mostly seem happy about it. Huh?  From: http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php [/ QUOTE ] The problems with this analysis have been covered before. Cliff notes: Life expectancy at birth is not a good indicator of overall health. It is highly skewed by infant mortality, which is higher in the US due to higher at risk births. The cost figures are incomplete because they don't reflect the offsets to cost from more expensive, less invasive procedures, nor do they reflect the gains from getting care promptly, instead of waiting and being non-productive sometimes for months or years. They also don't reflect the very high cost of terminal care, the incidence of prolonging terminal cases and the complications from obesity, which is higher in the US than other countries. [/ QUOTE ] Not to mention the free ride everyone else is getting from the USA subsidizing their drug research costs. natedogg [/ QUOTE ] Why isn't the right scale "per Capita Spending" in a log chart format? That USA spike is overly dramatic.
|
|
#96
10-08-2007, 07:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
Surely this graph would seem to advocate socialised medicine.
|
|
#97
10-08-2007, 07:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Not to mention the free ride everyone else is getting from the USA subsidizing their drug research costs. natedogg [/ QUOTE ]So vanity accounts for the whole difference? Damn. Good point. Also, how many boob jobs are being counted in those costs? [/ QUOTE ] So the arguments are: 1. The US is 3 times richer than elsewhere so they spend 3 times as much on healthcare as anywhere else. Nah. The US is in the top 10 for per capita income, but Americans aren't earning 3 times as much as people in other rich countries. Nowhere near. 2. It's all accounted for by cosmetic surgery. I guess this is a comforting idea (if you find vanity appealing); not exactly plausible though is it? 3. The US "subsidises" the rest of the world by allowing the drug companies to make obscene profits which are mostly paid for by American people. Yeah, OK. The rest of the world are sensible enough to regulate drug company profiteering, but you all see it as a threat to the freedom of the rich to get richer no matter what. So how come the top ten aren't exclusively US companies? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Convincing stuff guys! Heh.
|
|
#99
10-08-2007, 07:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
YMU, Your primary intentions probably aren't much different than others in this thread. The difference is, you think the government can actually be competent and regulate something efficiently.
|
|
#100
10-08-2007, 07:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
The US "subsidises" the rest of the world by allowing the drug companies to make obscene profits which are mostly paid for by American people. Yeah, OK. The rest of the world are sensible enough to regulate drug company profiteering, but you all see it as a threat to the freedom of the rich to get richer no matter what. So how come the top ten aren't exclusively US companies? [/ QUOTE ] Because of evil globalization, they can be European companies making money in the US. It's also interesting to note that more than 2/3 of the Nobels in Medicine over the last 10-15 years have been awarded for work done in the US.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
