Date: Nov 12, 2012 1:12 AM
Author: Paul A. Tanner III
Subject: Re: Obama's win - good or bad for the US/the world?
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 12:03 AM, kirby urner <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Do you think that it is mathematically impossible for the federal
>> government of a country to stop at least the vast majority of this
>> stoppable suffering and premature death caused by lack of proper food,
>> proper shelter, and proper health care?
> I think it is mathematically impossible for this particular federal
> government of this particular country to do so, yes. Not in its present
> frame of mind.
It's called single payer.
All that has to be done to have this is to turn Medicare into a system in which everyone is covered as a right of citizenship, and to reduce the deductibles and copays on everything to 0. Pure and simple. Perfectly mathematically possible. Businesses would be freed from having to pay higher and higher premiums, and the higher taxes would be no worse than what they would have to pay anyway.
To pay for it simply do what the Scandinavians do - we could double the share of GDP that comes from government revenues from 25% to match their 50%, and it would hurt our economy no worse than it hurts theirs: That is, government spending and investment done right - as they do it right - would help the economy grow faster, like theirs.
> Your analysis is freakishly devoid of compassion for all the tax boycotting
> US armed services veterans who ask their civilian contemporaries to stop
> feeding the monster.
Your analysis is freakishly devoid of compassion in that it shows an utter lack of caring for all those people who presently need the government services they have for food and shelter (again, half of Medicaid is for nursing home care) and health care, and lack of caring for all those who don't get it but need it and are getting nothing from private charity.
> You paint your opposition in monochrome as "conservatives" who won't bow to
> your superior Krugmanesque crapola.
This above is science-denying crackpot-ism.
> You hold up the image of poor families and singles needing health care and
> want us to think big government is compassionate.
> That's bait and switch. They money to take care of those people has already
> been provided, many times over, if you subtract the unnecessary wars.
Anyone who says this should not be speaking at a math forum.
That is what happens when people become fact-denying, mathematics-denying, science-denying crackpots - they lose the ability to add.
Here is the mathematical proof that this idea of yours is off by an entire order of magnitude of 10, the proof which I already gave many times over:
The wars since 2001 have cost about 2.5 trillion dollars, about 250 billion dollars per year.
The US government needs to spend close to TEN TIMES that much PER YEAR more than presently, to meet the needs of everyone whose needs are not presently being met with respect to not just health care but with respect to shelter in the form of rent subsidies, something the Scandinavians do for each other big time. I already proved in past posts that we need close to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR to cover those not presently covered in health care. But present spending for those on Medicaid and Medicare is not adequate - that needs to be beefed up to the tune of up to HALF A TRILLION PER YEAR more. And the rent subsidies needed to end homelessness and present near-homelessness would cost close to another ONE TRILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR.
The Scandinavians spend most of their roughly 50% of GDP that is government spending on providing these basics of life to each other collectively - it is maybe 40%. For the US with its 15 trillion dollar per year economy, that 40% of GDP would be about 6 trillion dollars per year. This math is right since this 2.5 trillion is from what I just said, added to the total we spend on health care in this country, both government and private being about 3.5 trillion per year, adds up to that 6 trillion. (The total cost would actually be reduced quite a bit if we had single payer because it would be so much more efficient, and so we could then match the Scandinavians in that the savings would simply move over to being retirement programs like pensions like they have.)
I again reiterate all the mathematical and scientific data I gave in my last two posts in this thread, the last one
and before that,
in which I prove that being anti-federal government is just plain evil, since I proved that it is plain mathematical fact that the federal government is the only thing that prevents suffering and premature death from lack of proper food, proper shelter, and proper health care from being higher - and much higher at that, and it is the only thing that can eliminate the vast majority of what such suffering and premature death exists and still continues.
Message was edited by: Paul A. Tanner III