Obama's Health Care Plan

[tsptalk]

Sorry Tom, won't happen again.

No sweat. I think you'll see that most of us are reasonable, even when we disagree. Glad to have you on board!

 

[Mcqlives]

What about this one from his address a few minutes ago? Sick leave?!?!?!?!

Obama, in his weekly radio and Internet address, said the government would enact rules making it easier for small businesses to let workers automatically enroll in Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and 401(k) retirement plans.
Payments for unused vacation time and sick leave could be converted into retirement savings under the new measures and Americans would be able to have tax refunds directly deposited into their retirement accounts or used to buy savings bonds.
The measures do not require congressional approval and most will take effect immediately.
"We have to revive this economy and rebuild it stronger than before," Obama said in the address. "And making sure that folks have the opportunity and incentive to save -- for a home or college, for retirement or a rainy day -- is essential to that effort."

 

[phil]

I admit to being inflammatory about National Health care. I just become extraordinarily tired of hearing the arguments about "Death Boards" and "this is too costly". The reality is: it's too costly now, and it's too costly not to have a national health system. We are quickly becoming the most uncompetitive nation in the world, healthwise. Our economic system would be strengthened by an efficient system of healthcare, education, transportation and energy.
IMHO

Sorry Tom, won't happen again.

 

[James48843]

My deepest apologies to all. I remain chastised for speaking out of turn.


The topic is health care. I think America needs it.

No need to apologize. You are welcome to jump in and debate at will. Just please bring along support for your points, so that we can examine them.

I agree that a national health care system would bring us much better results in business competitiveness. Unfortunately, to some, it appears that they wont' even consider hard data to show why it would be better for business, as well as better for people, if there were a single-payer plan, or just a federal insurance plan option for people.


In the meantime, the best idea I have heard yet, is to make Medicare available to anyone who wants to buy in. Make having some kind of insurance mandatory, and if you choose not to buy private insurance, then make Medicare the default public option.

My 2 cents. Your results may vary.

 

[tsptalk]

OK, then. Welcome!

 

[phil]

My deepest apologies to all. I remain chastised for speaking out of turn.


The topic is health care. I think America needs it.

 

[James48843]

James and I have little in common when it comes to politics yet I have nothing but respect for him and his opinions.

Our politics are not as far apart as it seems sometimes- but one thing is certain. I have nothing but the highest respect and regard for Tom. Tom always deals with facts.

Welcome to our message board.

I always enjoy a good debate- and a healthy debate, which uses logic and facts for support. On many occasions, my opinion is heavily influenced and changed when those in command of facts present them for analysis.

Give me a reason--with facts-- to support a position, and I will carefully consider it. Look at it. Test it. Check it out.

If it's valid- you can sway me.

It's it's hot air, I'll figure that out too.

Kind of reminds me of the Maria Bartiromo / Congressman Anthony Weiner discussion the other day. Take a watch at this- and then ask- who has the facts here, and who is blowing hot air?

​

 

[tsptalk]

I just had the observation. I did the math. It appears that the agenda was supplied by others, using false assumptions and mathematics. Fortunately, we noticed. :laugh:

You did have the observation, but you did not do the math. You didn't even know that there was an EAFE before 2001. James and I did the work and posted facts. Nothing false about the math.

I wasn't trying to vilify for your health care suggestion. I just posted my data because it seemed to differ from your 30 year assumption. That is, going back to 1988 (my TSP data) the U.S. market's return was triple that of the EAFE (22 years). You accused me of posting false data because there was no I-fund before 2001.

Unless I'm sadly mistaken, the I fund didn't begin until 2001, unless you had money in it before. Tell me your secret, please. So let's redo the math, shall we?

Then Jim's data went back to 1970 (40 years) saying the EAFE's return was 16% higher. Suddenly the math seemed to work for you because it helped support your argument...

Then, from doing the revised math, maybe we can say that the economic growth of much of the rest of the developed world came BECAUSE they had an efficient healthcare system?

We still haven't seen your 30 year data, which was an assumption. Could be right could be wrong. The point is, please don't accuse me of posting false anything. Everything I posted was accurate.

I know you are here to stir the pot, and you've done that, but your points (which may be good) will be taken more seriously if you treat people here with respect. Look around the board at other people's posts. You'll see what I mean. James and I have little in common when it comes to politics yet I have nothing but respect for him and his opinions.

 

[Mcqlives]

The key here is making it more affordable, period. I agree with your business idea. One way would be to allow small businesses, that cannot afford to pay the costs for benefits, to join a co-op where multiple businesses would provided insurance through a larger group and there by get the better rates!

 

[phil]

One other tiny detail that a person brought up before: the insolvency of certain European banks. The only ones that had real problems were those that were overexposed in the American housing market. Check out Fitch ratings. If they put money into REITs, they lost out.

They really messed up. They trusted us. They probably won't go to overexposure in the US real estate market again. They'll probably just invest their money in Eastern Europe. At least there they can monitor performance, and get some sort of return.

What a sad state of affairs.

 

[phil]

$5.2 billion: Amount General Motors paid for health benefits in 2004—more than it paid for steel.
$1,525: Amount General Motors estimates that health care costs add to the selling price of each new car it produces.

How to Cut Costs? Efficiency and Prevention
6: Factor by which administrative costs of the U.S. health care system are higher on a per-person basis than costs in comparable nations.
$100 billion: System-wide savings that could result every year from harnessing information technology like personal electronic health records and electronic prescribing.
$65 billion to $130 billion: Estimated economic value the United States could gain in better health outcomes if all Americans had health coverage.
75: Percentage of health care costs that result from chronic diseases, many of which are preventable or can be treated before people are very sick.
1-3: Percentage of our health dollars spent on prevention.
$1 billion: Annual amount that could be saved by providing flu vaccines to all elderly Americans.
$1 trillion: Amount that could be saved in Medicare spending over 25 years if our national obesity level returned to 1980s obesity rates.



I have a novel idea. Let's make healthcare affordable for American businesses, not just for Americans. I think we'd be more competitive. Let me know if you have a better plan.

 

[phil]

I just had the observation. I did the math. It appears that the agenda was supplied by others, using false assumptions and mathematics. Fortunately, we noticed. :laugh:

Let's see what happens in the near future with the EAFE. My economic assumption is that the larger corporations thrive in an environment where they don't have to absorb huge payments for health insurance for their employees. The huge economic outlays for corporations paying health costs in the US apparently make them uncompetitve with their rivals abroad. Why can European and Asian companies do so very well internationally, why can their manufacterers outcompete us even in the US?

I think these are key economic questions. What makes them better, more efficient than our own companies?

I have an idea. Let's just look at the facts, and not try to use false economic math.....like we seem to be doing.

Agenda. Yes, I have an agenda. Let's make America competitive again.

 

[tsptalk]

EAFE history. It started on December 31, 1969, with a value of 100.

TODAY, it closed at 1461 and change. It hit a high around 2400 before crashing down over the last year and a half.

Doing the math, that would mean the EAFE is up 1361% since 1970 and the Dow during that same time is up 1169%. Interesting. Japan's bubble and burst is obviously a big factor in when the EAFE outperformed the U.S. and when the U.S. outperformed the EAFE, but how it relates to the healthcare systems is beyond my pay grade.

It's an interesting topic. Too bad the original question came from someone who didn't really want the facts, but thanks to you, we got closer to an answer.

 

[James48843]

Ah yes.

Kind of like the magic of compound interest.

http://www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1995archive/122_3/11miraclegro.html

 

[tsptalk]

Tom:

Better check your figures.

I just added (and subtracted) up your column of "S" fund, and came up with a different number than you did.

I came up with 250.63%, not 611.85%

Am I doing it wrong?

Thanks

Jim

It's compounded. The S-fund is column "K" in my spreadsheet. This is the formula I use...

=(100*((1+(K27))*(1+(K26))*(1+(K25))*(1+(K24))*(1+(K23))*(1+(K22))*(1+(K21))*(1+(K20))*(1+(K19))*(1+(K18))*(1+(K17))*(1+(K16))*(1+(K15))*(1+(K14))*(1+(K13))*(1+(K12))*(1+(K11))*(1+(K10))*(1+(K9))*(1+(K8))*(1+(K7))*(1+(K6)))-100)/100

It's kind of like if you make 100% one year and lose 100% the next, you don't have a 0% return. You have a loss of 100%. Or if you lose 50% one year and make 100% the next, you are not up 50% but instead at 0%.

They don't add up with compounding.

 

[James48843]

EAFE history. It started on December 31, 1969, with a value of 100.

TODAY, it closed at 1461 and change. It hit a high around 2400 before crashing down over the last year and a half.

Here is the chart history:

View attachment 6771


Looks to me like it's ready to start climbing again.
​

 

[James48843]

Tom:

Better check your figures.

I just added (and subtracted) up your column of "S" fund, and came up with a different number than you did.

I came up with 250.63%, not 611.85%

Am I doing it wrong?

Thanks

Jim

 

[tsptalk]

Unless I'm sadly mistaken, the I fund didn't begin until 2001, unless you had money in it before. Tell me your secret, please. So let's redo the math, shall we?

The EAFE (which is the I-fund) has been around for many years. That's why I said TSP / indices. That's my secret, wiseguy. Same math. My data is TSP related and why it goes back to 1988 for comparisons.

I'll look at James's data. Maybe it does tell another story.

Let's just stick to economics in TSP. A review of the I fund shows us that just about EVERY country where the I fund has assets has universal health care, many having it for over 30 years. Why does the rest of the developed world seem to get away with tremendous economic growth coupled with universal healthcare?

I thought you were asking a question regarding the returns of the countries of the I-fund for the last 30 years so I tried to help, but it sounds like you didn't really have a question - you had an agenda.

 

[phil]

By the way, putting out false statistical information is just plain wrong. I'm sure that it wasn't deliberately done.

As far as Europe having problems, having universal healthcare doesn't seem to have bothered them too badly. Also Japan and Australia seem to be doing okay economically.

I have an idea. Let's try universal health care for Americans. If it becomes less efficient, we can deregulate the system, get the federal government out of it. Deregulation seems to have worked so well, particularly federal deregulation in the energy business (Enron).

What's everyone so frightened of? That it would work?

 

[phil]

Then, from doing the revised math, maybe we can say that the economic growth of much of the rest of the developed world came BECAUSE they had an efficient healthcare system?