PDA

View Full Version : how is the economy in Dec 09 for you?



huggytree
12-06-2009, 04:19 PM
I ask this same question ever 3-4 months...im just curious how its going on the west/east costs.

Here in WI its rock bottom...I think we were 6 months to 1 year behind.

I havent had a good homeowner call in 14 weeks....i went 6 weeks at one time without ONE CALL...Im living off of builder work....many of my existing builders havent done projects in 6 months....im lucky that i have sooo many small builders..my new home builders are 1/2 out of business or just temporarly out of business...many have gotten new jobs...

I was up 35%, but will finish the year 15% ahead because of the sudden drop off.....Im still breaking even and paying my wage....looks like i will continue until spring this way...im planning for next year to have less sales...

when i drive to work i notice that im often the only plumber on the road...when i do see another plumber its always a service guy....work vans on the road are 75%-90% down id say...most of them are unmarked....which to me means new companies...most a step above a sidejobber.

Stock market makes me happy lately
Unemployment went down nationally

Here in WI there was a large wave of layoffs recently...ive known a dozen or so...lots of 1/2 full strip malls and abandoned store fronts..

I can survive this...i just hope it doesnt get worse...looking forward to spring

anyone seeing anything positive? where do you live?

handprop
12-06-2009, 05:09 PM
The economy will get worse and your going to see another wave of foreclosures in the pipeline so brace yourself.

Mike

Steve B
12-06-2009, 06:47 PM
I was having a great year until the second week of Sept. Then things slowed down quite a bit for me.

It sounds like Mike has some inside information - we should make our investments accordingly and get rich.

handprop
12-06-2009, 07:16 PM
NEVER invest money on anything I print, period.

I have two things that I'm pretty sure make out for a good opinion.

First:I have quite a few friends who run or manage banks and they all have told me that the number of people who own homes and are behind in payments is escalating at a record rate. The associations they belong to are worried sick because they feel they are next to declare.

Second:Not only does my family own quite a few manufacturing companies but I have many friends that do also. The fact is many of the companies that have reported good earnings have done so based on restructuring or getting rid of people. That is not a good way to make money and is short lived. One other thing to consider is many big companies have been spending cash reserves to stay afloat, and that is also short lived. The fear is they are coming to the end of the rope.

Third:Common sense!

Mike

greenoak
12-06-2009, 07:42 PM
perking up!!!! and im hearing good reports from different parts of the world im in..from show dealers, reps, shops, and even a company owner......
90% of the folks are still employed.....we had a great nov....and seems to be starting out great for dec...
im in indiana and offering great value and with a recycled edge....and an entertainment factor too...as in a fun place to shop...
sold a load of furniture to a some wisconsin store today!!!...
the year is still down for us....about 10%
ann

huggytree
12-06-2009, 09:14 PM
Kentucky is down and Indiana is up.....hmmmm...my midwest being down isnt holding up.

I havent bought gold yet....i looked into it 5 months ago, but didnt pull the trigger...i am regretting it....i still could right now and should....they will be printing extra money for atleast 3 more years,so it might be a good idea to get 25% into gold

i worked 11 hours last week...i have 30+ for this week though...

why isnt the stockmarket going up helping? its the only thing that makes me feel better.

we started shopping at Walmart for food this week.....third world produce.....we can get an extra $100 a month that way...havent turned the thermostat down yet though..

handprop
12-06-2009, 09:18 PM
"third world produce" HA! That was funny Huggy

Mike

Evan
12-06-2009, 10:52 PM
The fact is many of the companies that have reported good earnings have done so based on restructuring or getting rid of people.

Some accounting rules have changed as well with how things are to be handled for financial statement purposes. These have generally helped financial institutions that got involved in this sub-prime mess.

greenoak
12-07-2009, 08:47 AM
heres what my glold guy used to say..... gold sells best when its sky high....and its so true....if we had bought it a few years ago we would be happy campers....
ann

nealrm
12-07-2009, 01:45 PM
We had a great Sept & Nov. To soon to tell on Dec, but past history is that Dec is at best just over break even. I have heard good news from the local tier one auto part supplier, in that the company is bringing back workers. It appears that the auto companies have started to increase production again. So that indicates a positive trend.

As for the gold comments, as with all commodities buy low sell high. Right now the price is sky high.

Spider
12-07-2009, 02:32 PM
...As for the gold comments, as with all commodities buy low sell high. Right now the price is sky high.Is it, though?!

I had bought gold coins some while ago at under $200/oz. It went up slowly and I bought some more, over a period. Gold went to $300 and I said it was getting too high. It came down - can't remember if I bought any more. When it went to $400 I said it was too high and would not even consider buying more until it came down from this "high" level.

Now, at $1,160/oz - is it too high? or was $400 too high? Some are predicting it will go to $5,000/oz. Well, of course it will - one day! In this decade? in this century? Who can call it high? Not me!

nealrm
12-07-2009, 04:15 PM
Historically gold has done about 5% over the last 35 years. Over the last 9 years it is at 16%. Has anything changed since 2000 to make gold inherently more valuable? Does gold have a historical record of raising during bad times and dropping quickly afterward (yes)?

handprop
12-07-2009, 04:47 PM
I just got back from a meeting with the professor of finance at University of Chicago Booth School of Business. The discussion was about health care solutions and at the end of the meeting we started to talk real casual so I brought op the economy. Luigi is a pretty famous economist at Booth and we talked about the future and the two points I listed on real estate and manufacturing issues. He agreed and added something I thought you folks would like to hear.

He added that the positives we see in the news are just an illusion. The fact is the past economy was driven by consumption and right now it's not. He and his associates forecast another crash after a slight up-tick and it's gonna be a very long time before we see decent gains in the economy again. He also backed it up with piles of data, and the fact that the up-tick we see doesn't involve new jobs is a real problem.

After he explained what it's gonna take to deal with bad debt and out of control spending in Washington he feels that it's gonna be many years.

Mike

nealrm
12-08-2009, 02:36 PM
He added that the positives we see in the news are just an illusion.

Is it the positives or the negitives that are the illusion? Using the same numbers that are currently reported in the news, this is what I found.

Out of 100 people in the job market, 90 are actively employed, 4 are in transition between jobs and 6 are looking for work.

On housing: out of 1000 homes, 995 are either making payments on time or own the home outright.

On Crime: out of 1000 people, none have commited murder and 995 of them have never been found guilty of hurting another person.

Interesting how things change when you look at the positive side.

Steve B
12-08-2009, 02:49 PM
Mike - you had me worried until I re-read your post and saw he was also an economist. Now, I think we have an equal chance that the sky isn't falling and things might get better sooner than he might think.

He would have been a REALLY famous economist if he would have been predicting this financial collapse before it happened (perhaps he did - I'm just assuming here). Looking back on it - it's amazing more economists and financial people weren't predicting this. I know some did - but not nearly as many as those that are able to do the Monday morning quarterbacking. I guess many of them didn't want to be the one to knock over the house of cards.

handprop
12-08-2009, 08:55 PM
Neal, being positive works in betting on football. Raw data is meaningless on it's own accord. Data can be found in a lot of places but on the real estate market i'll go with my bankers opinions and stay the hell out. But hey, go for it, the odds are still better than Las Vegas.

Steve, he did predict it! In fact many economists did but they were ignored. Congress was also warned and did nothing.

But do we really need someone to tell us???? When stocks are trading at 150 times earnings was that a clue? When banks were loaning over 100% of the value of the home was that a clue? When banks were giving loans out to build new homes with zero down was that a clue? Don't get me wrong here I made a lot of money in real estate and stocks so I guess I was part of it but I knew darn well it wouldn't last forever, and I knew it was gonna be a bad one on the way down.

With that said our economy has ZERO chance that that we can even begin a recovery this quickly......ZERO

No amount of positive thinking will change that......and I'm considered by most to be an overly positive person. I just don't buy into that, not for one second.

I looked into my crystal ball and here is what I saw:

Greed will push people to try and recover losses so you will see real estate and stocks being bought and the numbers will prove it. It will then be followed by another crash........

The small investor will get hurt while the big players won't because they will have nothing to do with it. But they will buy again, it will just be after the second crash when the small investor really has no money.


I don't expect anybody to agree with me because this is similar to the great false market we had before when everybody thought it was so great......and it wasn't.


I sure hope I'm wrong but I am quite confident in myself and the people I hang with.

Just my opinion

Mike

nealrm
12-09-2009, 10:13 AM
Handprop: Your right, people where real stupid in the real estate market (I don't use the term stupid lightly). Sorry but unless it is sitting on a gold mine I can't think of any 3 bedroom 2 bath property that is worth $500,000. Yet they were selling for that on both coast. So a correction was in order. I still feel that in several areas of the country the median home price will need to drop until it is better inline with the median income.

As for the value of positive thing. The economy is base on public confidence as much as it is on hard data. If the public as a whole, thinks the economy will improve, it will - if they think it will go into a recession it will.

On predictions by economists. The best they can do is give odds. Will there be a recession after this one, yes. Will it occur in the next 20 years - most likely. Will it occur in November of 2010 - ??????????????. It's like predicting the big earthquake in California, predict it long enough and it will come true. Then after the fact you can say, "See I predicted it years ago" :)

handprop
12-09-2009, 11:55 AM
Positive thinking does help but the numbers have to work or it doesn't matter. It's kind of like shuffling the chairs around on the Titanic, it's still gonna sink!

The economic prediction isn't in the next 20 years, they all predict it within the next 6-10 months......and it will stay that way for a long time.

It sucks, it really does, as much as I want it to end I just know they are right. It's one thing for them to sort of guess and pander with possible predictions but that's not what's happening. They are all 100% positive it's a sure bet. They compared it to a simple math equation.

Economics is not my area to be sure, but we will falter further than we ever have.

Again, I hope your right because last week two of my neighbors foreclosed on their homes. Both were business owners, and dam good ones at that! The both were in B2B type businesses and they went under because the people they do business with all went under.

I marked today on my Blackberry so in 8 months I will bump this thread. If i'm wrong you can laugh at me and call me a fool. But if i'm right, and I will be, it's gonna be bad, real bad.

Mike

Dan Furman
12-09-2009, 01:09 PM
I agree w/ you here, Mike (big surprise - most know I am an economic pessimist)

I generally dislike "positive thinking without a plan", and to me, that's what positive thinking on the economy is. If you look at the big picture without emotion, you will realize that our way of life is unsustainable. There's just no way this giant middle class in the first world can remain living on easy street without really producing all that much, and without having much skill. It just doesn't work. Too many others want in on the party. And they'll work for less than you will.

Our kids will have a harder life than we had - perhaps MUCH harder. That's painful for a lot of people to think about, but it's very likely true.

Spider
12-09-2009, 02:03 PM
It's all very well pooh-poohing (yes, it's a real word, it's in Webster's Collegiate, anyway!) - this idea of "positive thinking" with 'as long as the numbers work' and 'without a plan' and so on. All positive thinking is is to see the good side of something. It doesn't mean to 'paint a rosey picture' or 'dream foolishly.' And it certainly has no relationship with 're-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.' All Neal did was to change his perspective, not change the facts.

When you have 10% unemployment, you do have 90% employment. That is a fact, not wishful thinking.

I have been following the stockmarkets and the world economies (not studying, mind, just paying attention) for well over 40 years and I have seen "experts" come and go. The bright wonder-boy today is all over the Business News as long as his prophecies play out, but as soon as he misses, he is seen no more. There is nobody I thought was brilliant from the 1960s that is heard from today. Or the 70s, or the 80s....

In any economic situation, you will have economists and others (many others!) forcasting everything from total annihilation of the entire world's economic system to mega-boom and elimination of poverty. The only thing one can be sure of - that I am prepared to be sure of - is that what actually happens will fall somewhere between these two extremes. Anything more specific than that is just hot air - or, to put it kindly, one person's opinion. Nothing more.

handprop
12-09-2009, 02:52 PM
Spider, sooner or later people need to realize that the amount of damage done to create this doesn't just go away in a matter of months, I wish it was that simple. The bad debt is still out there, and hasn't gone away. The fact that 90% of the population is working is the dumbest statistic possible to measure the economy. The "stock market" as well, what you see on the news when you see the DJIA is 30 companies, hardly an indication, and the number you see don't represent the economy, not by a long stretch of the imagination. On the issue of the 90% working (I'm being positive, ya ho) how many of them have taken jobs that pay less????????? Any idea what the real numbers look like? NO, because economics is complicated.

This recession we have is usually compared to something like the "great depression" and for me that is also wrong. However.......it does share similarities, and if your well versed in ecomomics you will also realize that it wasn't until the 50's that this country got back on track. Some economists say we never really recovered, but I don't really want to go there. Anyhow, It's my belief that this country is in for a rude awakening.

Remember physics class: CAUSE & EFFECT.......We haven't even begun to feel the effect, what we have now is just a calm before the storm.

Common sense
Mike

nealrm
12-09-2009, 03:03 PM
Well said Spider.

HandProp: I'm going to raise your economist and manufacturing friends and see you with a list of opinions by many economists and business experts. The link attached includes the forecast from the fed, WSJ, a survey of professional forecasters, etc. Overall about 14 different opinions. All state that the economy most likely will grow next year. The link to the survey of professional forecasters has a link to charts showing the probability of different outcomes. The percentage range from a recession (<2%), to a max of 40% for a real GDP growth of 2.6%, and trails off to nothing for a GDP growth in excess of 6%.

Macroeconomic Forecasts (http://web.rollins.edu/~wseyfried/forecast.htm)

handprop
12-09-2009, 03:08 PM
I'll check it out!

Mike

Dan Furman
12-09-2009, 04:15 PM
It's all very well pooh-poohing (yes, it's a real word, it's in Webster's Collegiate, anyway!) - this idea of "positive thinking" with 'as long as the numbers work' and 'without a plan' and so on. All positive thinking is is to see the good side of something. It doesn't mean to 'paint a rosey picture' or 'dream foolishly.' And it certainly has no relationship with 're-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.' All Neal did was to change his perspective, not change the facts.

When you have 10% unemployment, you do have 90% employment. That is a fact, not wishful thinking.


Agreed - it is fact. But it was indeed turned around to paint a brighter picture. Which it isn't any brighter. 10% unemployment is bad. That means 90% employment is still bad.

Can it be worse? Heck yea (that's another one people like to use... "hey, it could be worse...") But saying things akin to "well, it could be worse" or "hey, at least 90% are still working" kind of ignores the problem, and sets the stage for inaction. Sorry - just not a fan.

I'd rather say "it's @#$%ing bad.... now, what can I personally do about it?"

greenoak
12-09-2009, 04:39 PM
im hopeful..we have adjusted a bit and not by cutting people or outsourcing..we will definitely do even better when more houses sell ....i cant underestimate that reality!!
.
.. but im so leery of positive thinking, or at least some of the people pushing that.......you guys should see how its used in the girly world...towards women in business..... many of our 'experts' tout go girl, live your dream and THE SECRET...making it sound like the main thing in business is putting your heart and soul into it and that will make your idea work... ..... .it gets even sadder when the people pushing this kind of thinking are selling big expensive web sites to new women in business...thats bad enough but just a few thousand $$$$ then there are the women starting up stores and ending up owing tens of thousands..who believed the starry eyed predictions...... we women hear beautiful business stories in the shelter mags all the time........who love to write up women in business....not mentioning they are just starting out and havent made a dime yet..
i wholesale to lots of women in business...or used to...lol....and its pretty sad the way many go into it and how much money some lose... that has to be paid back........
women are about our whole business target..... retail and wholesale...
ann

Spider
12-09-2009, 04:43 PM
...I'd rather say "it's @#$&#37;ing bad.... now, what can I personally do about it?"Okay - suppose I go along with what you said, Dan, and try to answer your question. What can you do about it?

You focus on the 90%. You try to find those among the 90% that could use a copywriter. Then you try to figure out who, among those that could use a copywriter, actually wants to. Then you try to locate those that want to hire a copywriter AND have the money to actually hire one.

You don't do this by focussing on the 10% unemployed - simply because even if they could use a copywriter and they actually want to hire a copywriter and even if the actually want to hire you, they don't have the money.

So, focus on the 90%.

That's my business tip of the day. If you would be so kind as to PM me your postal address, I'll send you my invoice for Coaching Services rendered..

Spider
12-09-2009, 05:38 PM
...The fact that 90% of the population is working is the dumbest statistic possible to measure the economy. The "stock market" as well, what you see on the news when you see the DJIA is 30 companies, hardly an indication, and the number you see don't represent the economy, not by a long stretch of the imagination....Several things in those two sentences--

1. I don't think anyone said that 90% of the population is working (if I did, I apologize.) Employment/unemployment figures are only of people in or seeking a job. In fact, the total labor force of the United States (that's what the unemployment figures are a percentage of) is only 154.3 million (2008 figures) out of a total population of 307 million. That is to say, only 50% of the country's population constitutes the labor force. The other 50% are children, retired people, wealthy people not working, business owners who are not employed as such, stay-at-home-moms (and dads, I suppose), people in prison and other institutions, people unable to work for health or other reasons, and so on. So, that 90% is 90% of the people who want a job have one.

2. The unemployment figures are a measure of the economy - "a" measure, not "the" measure. There are many statistics that go into measuring the economy and the unemployment figures are a legitimate contribution to the whole.

3. The stockmarket is not the Dow Jones Industrial Average of 30 representative public companies. The DJIA is not the only statistic that measures the performance of the stockmarket - there are hundreds of indices. The Dow Jones is not a stockmarket. What are commonly referred to as stockmarkets facilitate the buying and selling of things other than company shares. When I referred to the stockmarket, I was speaking collectively of all the markets that facilitate the buying and selling of corporate shares, corporate and municipal bonds, government issued paper like Treasury bills, Treasury notes, and so on, plus other trading floors for commodities - oil, gas, sugar, aluminum, orange juice, pigs bellies, etc, etc. etc. plus currency trading and, I'm sure, other entities that haven't immediately sprung to mind as I write this.

You are right - DJIA doesn't represent the economy and I don't think anyone suggested that it does. Again, if what I said suggested that to you, I apologize.

Dan Furman
12-09-2009, 05:39 PM
Okay - suppose I go along with what you said, Dan, and try to answer your question. What can you do about it?

You focus on the 90%. You try to find those among the 90% that could use a copywriter. Then you try to figure out who, among those that could use a copywriter, actually wants to. Then you try to locate those that want to hire a copywriter AND have the money to actually hire one.

You don't do this by focussing on the 5% unemployed - simply because even if they could use a copywriter and they actually want to hire a copywriter and even if the actually want to hire you, they don't have the money.

So, focus on the 90%.

That's my business tip of the day. If you would be so kind as to PM me your postal address, I'll send you my invoice for Coaching Services rendered..

That's kind of missing my point - I'm not focusing on any one aspect. In fact, I do sometimes do work for unemployed people (I write nice cover letters).

My point was the "90%" was used to paint a rosier picture on 10% unemployment, and it's really not any rosier. 10% unemployment is bad. So is 90% employment. Nothing changed.

I personally find things like "look on the bright side" a waste of time, because in reality, it's usually a false hope, and little more. But if it makes people feel good, have at it, I suppose. Maybe I'm the weird one?

Spider
12-09-2009, 05:51 PM
... but im so leery of positive thinking, or at least some of the people pushing that.......you guys should see how its used in the girly world...towards women in business..... ...women starting up stores and ending up owing tens of thousands..who believed the starry eyed predictions...... we women hear beautiful business stories in the shelter mags all the time........who love to write up women in business....not mentioning they are just starting out and havent made a dime yet...I don't see that as positive thinking, Ann. That, to me, is positive trickery. It is certainly not what I refer to when I use the term, "positive thinking."

It is the same line-crossing for which a good advertising copywriter would criticize a poor advertising copywriter. Sure, the truth will be told in the best possible light, but it still must be the truth, and, more importantly, I feel, must convey the truth.

nealrm
12-09-2009, 06:01 PM
..."look on the bright side" a waste of time, because in reality, it's usually a false hope, and little more....

Looking at the bright side is never a waste of time, nor is it equivalent to false hope. False hope is saying we will never have a recession so I don't need to plan for it. Looking the the positive side is saying "Yes, recessions do occur, but they will pass. I will survive by adjusting to meet the challenges." Looking at the positive side is not denying the bad but say that even if the worst occurs, flowers will still bloom in the spring.

Spider
12-09-2009, 06:16 PM
...My point was the "90%" was used to paint a rosier picture on 10% unemployment, and it's really not any rosier. 10% unemployment is bad. So is 90% employment. Nothing changed. .. I don't think the change of focus was intended to paint a rosier picture, because - as you correctly point out - nothing changed.

I didn't read Neal's intent as being anything but a change of perspective. Apparently, you did, Dan. What does that tell us about our different approaches to a problem?

What is says about my approach to a problem is, I will look at an apparent problem and try to find a way I can solve it. The problem presented, in this case, was high unemployment. I didn't see an immediate solution by focussing on the unemployed but, rather, to focus on the employed, because it would only be by my increasing my input - do more business - that economic activity would increase thus bringing employment to the unemployed -- and I could only do business with people who have money with which to do business, and I will find them in the 90% group rather than the 10% group.

Your approach - as you explained - was to focus (at least partially) on the 10% group, because you could help them directly by writing cover letters for them to apply for jobs.

I further suggest that the more you know about any problem, seeing it from all angles, the better equipped one would be to find a solution.

greenoak
12-09-2009, 07:32 PM
i agree frederick...it really is trickery in a few cases im familiar with.... .... ....
from the shelter mags ,maybe its benevolent and them not really knowing or caring about the reality........ its not their business really.they are about good pictures and a good story.......but they have a huge influence....

i think a positive attitude definitely helps you sell..especially if its with a serious ...WE CAN MAKE THIS WORK.... attitude...... a cheery person is just nicer to be around.... and that probably opens up more doors ...
..ann

handprop
12-09-2009, 08:08 PM
Spider, your repeating what I said in a quasi explaination pawned off as something else. Selling and attitude are NOT what this topic is about! When you explain it in terms of how you handle a problem that is also irrelevant to the topic. This thread is really about looking forward to what the economy COULD have in store for all of us. The only way to do that is either gut feeling or by using data, and it's still a guess. Looking at the situation right now it's pretty bad.

Mike

Blacktalon
12-09-2009, 10:12 PM
Pretty much the lesson here is really this: Take everything with a grain of salt. If you're well educated, you'll see through the figures the media portrays to us on a daily basis and look for the answers yourself. Ideally, that's what people really ought to do, but they don't.

You'd also probably enjoy The Spaceman's show on Saturday nights (usually after the Leafs game, which is around 11 p.m. EST) on 640toronto.com. I think you'll find it quite interesting to say the least.

Aside from that, our economy up here in Canada is squeaking out quite decently. I believe our third quarter saw growth (albeit quite low, but still an economic expansion) of 0.3&#37; I believe.

Then again our spending habits have been quite contained for the last several years; up until this past fiscal year we've been running budget surpluses (thanks in part to the Jean Chr&#233;tien/Paul Martin Liberal fiscal policy). Only since our "beloved" Conservatives have come into power we've gone back into deficit spending (although at a rate much, much lower than what you guys are experiencing in the US). Some will argue that it was necessary, others will say it's a waste of taxpayer's money.

You guys, however, in the States, your situation is much, much different and it will only continue to get worse so long as this ridiculous deficit and debt continues to grow. The fact that your government wants to install a healthcare system much like ours here will only further complicate things. How will your government afford the payments to support a population like that? If they go along the lines with the present pricing structure for healthcare down there now sans aid from the government to cover, they'll be forced into deficit spending for many years to come, further complicating any recovery at all. Welcome to third world country territory.

Aside from deficit spending, I'd be more concerned about sleeper inflation. At the rate you're printing money that'll kill the value of the dollar in no time.

Blacktalon

Spider
12-09-2009, 10:21 PM
Spider, your repeating what I said in a quasi explaination pawned off as something else. Selling and attitude are NOT what this topic is about! When you explain it in terms of how you handle a problem that is also irrelevant to the topic. This thread is really about looking forward to what the economy COULD have in store for all of us. The only way to do that is either gut feeling or by using data, and it's still a guess. Looking at the situation right now it's pretty bad. MikeActually, this thread was not about looking to the future. The original post simply asked how we each are finding things right now in Dec.09.

But it's not unusual for threads to stray from their original course. And once they do that, the thread becomes about whatever any of us care to make it about. I have chosen to make my replies about what I see as a predominantly and unnecessarily bleak look of the future and the reasons for my contrarian view. I'm sorry if you find my explanations 'quasi' and misleading (I guess that's what you mean by "pawning off".)

Looking at the situation right now I'd say it was pretty good. I am working on having an excellent year in 2010. My stock portfolio gained 37&#37; during 2009 and I expect similar gains for 2010.

We will not agree on everything, I think, and we will just have to get used to that.

Dan Furman
12-09-2009, 11:11 PM
I don't think the change of focus was intended to paint a rosier picture, because - as you correctly point out - nothing changed.

I didn't read Neal's intent as being anything but a change of perspective. Apparently, you did, Dan. What does that tell us about our different approaches to a problem?


I really don't understand where you are going with this. It indeed was a change in perspective - I didn't see it as anything more. It's just a pointless one, in my mind.

I don't understand where this focusing on one group (which you brought in) enters into it at all. Personally, in terms of employment, I don't focus at all on any one group, etc. I do what I do, and sometimes unemployed people need me for one reason or another.

Dan Furman
12-09-2009, 11:16 PM
Looking at the bright side is never a waste of time, nor is it equivalent to false hope. False hope is saying we will never have a recession so I don't need to plan for it. Looking the the positive side is saying "Yes, recessions do occur, but they will pass. I will survive by adjusting to meet the challenges." Looking at the positive side is not denying the bad but say that even if the worst occurs, flowers will still bloom in the spring.

But turning it around and basically saying "see, it's not so bad" (which is what I found silly) is not what you are now describing above. I generally agree with what you are describing above.

Yes, we'll come out of recession, even if coming out of it means we hit a bottom and stay there (which i find more likely than going back to boom times)

handprop
12-09-2009, 11:24 PM
I understand what happens when a thread gets changed and how it works Spider. I tend to think in terms a little more complex. As far as if someone agrees or not.....of course that's kind of obvious isn't it? Time will be the real test.

I'm having a banner year but I have taken a hit.

Blacktalon, that's another good point. No way can a country do that without paying a penalty, and we will pay. I'm pretty sure that;s why it's in the news 24/7 and my guess is, once again, it will get much worse before it gets better.

Mike

Spider
12-10-2009, 12:32 AM
...The fact that your government wants to install a healthcare system much like ours here will only further complicate things. How will your government afford the payments to support a population like that? ... I find the notion generally pushed in the US that government run/controlled healthcare, a la Canada, will be unbearably expensive quite puzzling. You seem to be saying the same. Yet I see in Wikipedia the following:

Government and public health and public policy analysts often make a comparison of the Canadian and American health care systems because the two countries at one time had very similar health care systems until the Canadians began reforming their system in the 1960s and 1970s. The U.S. spends much more on health care than Canada, both on a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP. In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%.

...which says to me that the Canadian largely government system is far cheaper than America's largely private system.

Have you any suggestions why the consensus is that it is more expensive, while the numbers say the opposite?

handprop
12-10-2009, 12:42 AM
WOW, things are getting bad when we depend on Wikipedia for numbers.

billbenson
12-10-2009, 01:01 AM
I frequently use Wikipedia for information. I have yet to find an error in something I am knowledgeable. I'll assume they are correct here as their content is quite professionally monitored.

Harold Mansfield
12-10-2009, 01:04 AM
I think (or at least I hope) that people will stop waiting for the government to do something and start getting back to doing for themselves and making the adjustments they need to make to go forward.

I agree that there is still a lot of debt out there and another collapse of a financial company would really bum people out, but we are a resilient society and where some see doom and woe, others see opportunity.

Steve B
12-10-2009, 07:24 AM
billbenson - I've not seen any blatant errors in Wikipedia either - but, I'm sure Mike has a reason for his comment. Maybe he has access to some other more reliable information.

I've seen interesting information that also compares what we spend on healthcare versus the health of our society. I don't remember the specifics, but I do remember that spending the most money does not get us the best results as far as life expectancy etc. We're great at the high end surgeries etc. (for those with insurance), but we override that with overeating and other unhealthy habits. Of course, the unhealthy habits are an individual's responsibility and has nothing to do with how or where they get their medical insurance. It's just interesting that spending the most on healthcare hasn't impacted some important overall statistics.

greenoak
12-10-2009, 09:03 AM
i sure see what dan is saying....im hearing some good things in my world right now...
..but in my town the good jobs that went to mexico arent coming back....so it really is bad and i dont hear whats going to replace all those jobs...
maybe it will be a whole lot of small businessese like ours..... and we could be more competitive if we didnt have to pay so much out in health insurance..... ....its a hurdle other industrialized countries dont put on their businesses....
im thinking there will be a new normal...a new lower normal for most people...

handprop
12-10-2009, 09:32 AM
I use Wikipedia all the time but many of its entries are flawed. Individual entries can be mistaken. If Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia – how do you know you aren’t citing or referencing an entry written by someone who flunked out of school? Wikipedia is far from the gold standard of information.

Regardless, what is the health care proposal both on a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP going to cost, notice I didn't say spend, what I want is cost, big difference. Spider seems to be a man of numbers and is always quoting them so maybe he could enlighten me, because I can't seem to find out the answer.

Mike

handprop
12-10-2009, 09:42 AM
It would be fair to mention that the "cash for clunkers" that was toted as something great actually cost more than the $4,500. Estimates range from 24,000 to about 45,000. That's real efficient, glad I could help people get a new car.......I sure hope they can make the payments! Otherwise I'll have to bail them out also, but it's ok because i'm saving the world.

Please consider these numbers when crunching the math for the answer.

Mike

Spider
12-10-2009, 09:51 AM
WOW, things are getting bad when we depend on Wikipedia for numbers.Why? Are the numbers incorrect? Or are we now into tearing down just for the sake of tearing down?

Let us not forget that the information on Wikipedia is not written by Wikipedia - Wikipedia is a computer storage device, a data base. That's all. The information is provided by contributing individuals, many of whom are experts in the subjects on which they write. Are we to critisize Starbucks coffee because it is served in paper cups, or shall we discuss the merits of the coffee?

IOW, do you want to discuss the numbers, or just critisize Wikipedia? Or critisize me because you don't like Wikipedia?

Focus, my friend! What do you think of the numbers and the message they convey?

handprop
12-10-2009, 09:58 AM
Spider, you just repeated what I said, please reread what I posted and lets get to the answer. Paper cups have nothing to do with it, can you answer the question or not?

When you bring data into the conversation you shouldn't just go half way, what's the rest of the math.

Tearing down?? Don't be so sensitive, numbers should always be questioned!

Mike

Dan Furman
12-10-2009, 10:09 AM
im thinking there will be a new normal...a new lower normal for most people...

Well said! This is exactly how I see it - "A new normal".

I like it!

handprop
12-10-2009, 10:13 AM
Dan, isn't it funny how people, when waiting for a recovery, think we will go back to business as usual. It's as if we are going to pick up where we left off and all will be good. Geez are they gonna have a wake up call!

Mike

Dan Furman
12-10-2009, 10:21 AM
I think (or at least I hope) that people will stop waiting for the government to do something and start getting back to doing for themselves and making the adjustments they need to make to go forward.

I agree that there is still a lot of debt out there and another collapse of a financial company would really bum people out, but we are a resilient society and where some see doom and woe, others see opportunity.

But it's not either/or. I do see doom and woe. And I also see plenty of oppportunity.

Maybe you could say I see doom and bloom. :)

What I'm saying is, you have to acknowledge the doom and woe, and admit is exists. Only then can you actually do something about it (you won't fix a problem you don't believe exists). That's why I think painting the rosey picture out of the woe isn't productive - it gives a false hope. But I'm not saying you have to give up and not see opportunity - I think that's equally unproductive.

I recall earlier this year when i did an interview with a guy. I mentioned the recession, etc, and he said something like "What recession? I don't know of any recession. Personally, I'm not participating."

Yea, that's all clever and good, and it's also really, really dumb. It reminded me of an Amway shtick or something. His idea was to basically carry on like nothing ever happened. He didn't adjust anything in the face of falling sales - he thought it was all attitude. He's prettymuch out of business now.

Dan Furman
12-10-2009, 10:26 AM
Dan, isn't it funny how people, when waiting for a recovery, think we will go back to business as usual. It's as if we are going to pick up where we left off and all will be good. Geez are they gonna have a wake up call!

Mike

Oh, it annoys me soooooo much. People say things like "we've been through this before, and we always bounce back..."

well, look at economic history - this period of awesome middle class prosperity in the first world is not the norm. It's the norm for people alive now, because it's all we've known. But it's not the norm.

greenoak
12-10-2009, 01:17 PM
i sure agree....the antique world has changed drastically....and i heard all the time' it will come back'...luckliy we ignored that idea and watched the customers and our numbers... so we survived but our store had to change drastically .....
thats what i wish the big corps would do , .im just afraid that they dont need to .... they have lobbied and customized the laws so perfectly for themselves that they dont need it to work for the country.....they are doing great without us doing great...

billbenson
12-10-2009, 01:43 PM
I use Wikipedia all the time but many of its entries are flawed. Individual entries can be mistaken. If Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia – how do you know you aren’t citing or referencing an entry written by someone who flunked out of school? Wikipedia is far from the gold standard of information.

Mike

My problem is, Mike, that Wikipedia promotes reviews by its peers. If I am reading something and see a blatant error or even a subtle one, I can report it and it will generally be reviewed for accuracy. It's a pretty good system. I seem to find that it it pretty non partisan on most issues. If very many people point out an error it will certainly be reviewed.

Compare that with the news which to many people take as gospel. It is usually intentionally slanted.

Rush, now there is accurate information. He'll say anything to improve ratings. I bet he's drinking buddies with Howard Stern.

Multiple times above in this thread, stats have been presented and other stats that are different presented as well. At times both of these facts are taken out of context or fail to mention related details so they can be used as information rather than gospel.

Just once I'd like to see a review by a group of independent economist with no agenda.

Not really a quick fix (don't think there is one), but I'd like to see mandatory higher education in the work place and much better education for our kids. At least we can come up to par with other countries moving forward by stressing education.

Spider
12-10-2009, 02:15 PM
...Tearing down?? Don't be so sensitive, numbers should always be questioned!You weren't questioning the numbers, you were criticizing the package they came in. So, let's question the numbers...


...what is the health care proposal both on a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP going to cost, notice I didn't say spend, what I want is cost, big difference. Spider seems to be a man of numbers and is always quoting them so maybe he could enlighten me, because I can't seem to find out the answer.Well, you won't find any cost or spending numbers yet because, as I'm sure you know, the healthcare proposals are just that at present - proposals - and they are being debated, discussed and modified, in both houses of Congress at this very moment. It won't be until legislation is finalised that costs can be determined. I hope that our legislators will know the cost before they cast their votes. But maybe they won't.

I can tell you this, much as I enjoy discussing the meat of the subect, I am not going to try second-guessing our legislators. Whether we like them or not, they are what we have, we put them there, and we have to live with what they decide. Their decisions are our decisions (government by the people, for the people, and all that!) I consider them a whole lot smarter than most people seem to, simply because our democracy is the best form of government ever devised and picks the best people to govern us, right? (If we haven't achieved that in 230 years, we had better scrap it all and apply to re-join the British Empire!)

What I am able to report, referencing the request for numbers, is (and none of the following is from Wikipedia) that America's current healthcare system is more expensive that any other advanced nation's healthcare system and the only system among developed nations that is wholly or mostly private. All other developed nations have less costly systems that are mostly, but not entirely, government sponsored.

I use the term 'sponsored' because, as far as I can determine, in other advanced nations the healthcare costs are largely paid for directly by the people through a government-run insurance program, and the health system is run by doctors. Only in America, as far as I can tell, is any of this run by private insurance companies. And that, to me, is the problem we have.

But you wanted some numbers--

(Many of these figures are provided by the CIA and the OECD - reputable enough for you? - and are the latest I could find in each category.)

Britain's governement sponsored HC system costs $2,317 per person (2003)
Canada's governement sponsored HC system costs $2,998 per person (2003)
America's mostly private HC system costs $5,711 per person (2003)

Britain's HC system costs 7.8% of GDP
Canada's HC system costs 9.8% of GDP
America's HC system costs 15.2% of GDP

Britain's HC system provides life expectancy of 79.01 years (36th out of 224 countries.)
Canada's HC system provides life expectancy of 81.23 years (8th out of 224 countries.)
America's HC system provides life expectancy of 78.11 years (50th out of 224 countries.)

Britain's infant mortality 4.85 deaths per 1,000 live births (31st out of 224 countries)
Canada's infant mortality 5.04 deaths per 1,000 live births (35th out of 224 countries)
America's infant mortality 6.26 deaths per 1,000 live births (44th out of 224 countries)
The best - Singapore - manages 2.31 deaths per 1,000 live births

Britain's HC system suffers 22,000 deaths from medical errors per year (36 deaths per 10,000 population.)
Canada's HC system suffers 24,000 deaths from medical errors per year (72.7 deaths per 10,000 population)
America's HC system suffers 195,000 deaths from medical errors per year (63.5 deaths per 10,000 population.)
(Figures in this category are from very broad estimates and are thus no more than a rough guide.)

From the McKinsey Global Institute : ...The United States spends more of its income on health care than other developed countries and that share is rising. It is an arresting statistic that the U.S. now spends more on health care than it does on food...

Also, note that the higher cost of American Healthcare costs do not translate into higher quality healthcare results.

Now, there are a lot more statistics than these available, but these are the one I thought were significant. Feel free to do your own research and let us know what you find.

Steve B
12-10-2009, 02:50 PM
"many of its entries are flawed."
"Individual entries can be mistaken"
"If Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia – how do you know you aren’t citing or referencing an entry written by someone who flunked out of school?"
"Wikipedia is far from the gold standard of information."

I really thought you'd have something more specific than these vague references.

Spider - Thanks for the figures on the quality of the health care. I had heard that before and it always seems to be ignored in discussions on healthcare. We're spending a ton of money without getting particularly good results.

handprop
12-10-2009, 04:51 PM
Spider, you said the following-

"I am not going to try second-guessing our legislators. Whether we like them or not, they are what we have, we put them there, and we have to live with what they decide."

After reading what you said it became quite clear what you really represent. You should read the constitution and the reason behind it. Not questioning our representatives IS the problem, and so are people like you. When you decide to trust them that goes against everything our founding fathers tried to instill.

I am so blown away by the stupidity of that statement that quite frankly you carry no credibility what so ever.

Don't bother wasting my time and answering this message because I will not reply. Anybody that says what you just said becomes meaningless. Meanwhile, I will continue to question anybody who holds an elected position regardless of what party they belong to because that's the job of an American.

Good day sir

Mike

Dan Furman
12-10-2009, 05:19 PM
I am so blown away by the stupidity of that statement that quite frankly you carry no credibility what so ever.

Don't bother wasting my time and answering this message because I will not reply. Anybody that says what you just said becomes meaningless.


Mike, c'mon. There's no need for this.

billbenson
12-10-2009, 05:41 PM
I am so blown away by the stupidity of that statement that quite frankly you carry no credibility what so ever.

Don't bother wasting my time and answering this message because I will not reply. Anybody that says what you just said becomes meaningless. Meanwhile, I will continue to question anybody who holds an elected position regardless of what party they belong to because that's the job of an American.

Good day sir

Mike

Mike, you are someone who tries to build themselves up by tearing others down. The funny thing is all you do is convince people you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. You only give unsubstantiated statements and personal opinions based on "years of research"

If you want to impress someone here, give useful helpful information. To date you have given no helpful information to anybody. You just tear others down with baseless facts which make it more obvious that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

By the way, I don't believe you have a $250k airplane either.

handprop
12-10-2009, 05:50 PM
Dan, I hold much respect for you. Based on what you write and what you say about your past experience in life I can see it no other way. I pray that you get everything you deserve because something inside me tells me you have earned it, and I also would bet that you will. You have a rare ability to see through the fog and see things for what they really are, kudos to you. A person like yourself has the capacity to have just about anything you set your mind to.

I love my country and everybody in it. In my own life I have been to hell and back. I have held a child in my arms and watched them die. I have seen people get sued for things they haven't done and loose everything because of it. I have survived things in this life that most people take for granted. All this adds up to why I fight like hell in politics, and that includes both parties. So when an American flat out says they wont question an elected official it says a lot about that person, I feel it is our duty. With a mentality like that I just don't see any intelligent conversation going forward.

It comes off sounding pretty rough and I guess not nice and maybe I should learn to write with more etiquette but that's just me. Day in and day out I talk and email 100's of people a day who are loosing homes and can't find jobs. As an American I have taking it upon myself to no longer sit by and let things just happen because we have leaders we should trust. When I tuck my kids in each night it scares me to think that someday they might ask me why I didn't do anything to help save their future so my feelings are strong in this department.

It blows my mind when I think someone stands by the wayside and says they wont question the very people we elect. That is just crazy.

Mike

Spider
12-10-2009, 05:52 PM
Actually, Dan - there is need for this. I am frequently faced with people who hold the party line - that our healthcare system is the best in the world, that any government system will be more expensive than the private system we have, that government involvement is socialism and anything akin to socialism is bad, that government cannot improve healthcare without increasing the cost, etc. etc.

This outburst was needed to enable Mike to withdraw without addressing the numbers that he asked for. Perhaps he thought I would be unable to support my statements with figures.

Actually, I do think the American healthcare system is good. I also think it can be improved considerably, to the benefit of all residents, and can be improved with a lowering of costs. These ideas are what we should be pressing our representatives for, not the status quo, which serves only the insurance companies.

I caught a glimpse of the news this afternoon that, I think, says a public option is now not to be included in the healthcare legislation. That is what the public should be questioning their representatives about. The only gainers are the insurance companies, I'm afraid.

handprop
12-10-2009, 05:53 PM
Bill, you sound like a 5 year old.

Ever wonder why this forum always has the same 5-6 people on it and nobody else. Where are your solutions on this forum........nothing, nothing at all.

Grow up

greenoak
12-10-2009, 09:13 PM
this is pretty sad.........
i think people who listen to right wing radio, talking rush here, think its ok to be all knowing, and agressive and rude..they seem to think everybody accepts their ideas,...and see things as black and white...ignoring everyones nuances.....
p.s. on the other side, mike has helped me ...i bought pink cards today.....
.

Dan Furman
12-10-2009, 11:21 PM
It blows my mind when I think someone stands by the wayside and says they wont question the very people we elect. That is just crazy.
Mike

Thank you for the compliments, etc. :)

I didn't want to quote everything or this post would be too big. Two things, though:

1) I was just saying there's really no need to flat-out insult anyone, that's all. Differing of opinion is fine, and I totally respect where you are coming from, but calling names, etc is just noise. Especially online.

2) I really, really think Spider was conveying that "hey, we elected them, so we're going to have to swallow what they do". To me, that means he feels the time to complain is when you hit that voting booth. And I see nothing wrong with that sentiment. At some point, you have to let the leaders you elected lead, even if you don't personally like all of their decisions (truth be told, many of the founding fathers thought they - as in government - knew best.)

nealrm
12-13-2009, 12:05 PM
Spider,
Those are the numbers that keep being throw out, however they don't tell the full story. Here is some facts I read in the newspaper during my last trip to Canada. (Paraphrased) 1) Canada has a shortage of doctors due to the most talented doctors leaving Canada for the US. 2) Several African countries have filed complaints against Canada for recruiting away doctors to fill that shortage.

[Rant warning]
Another fact not included in your numbers is that American's have become FAT and physically inactive. (Note for those with true medical disorders the result is weigh gain, the following comments don't necessarily apply to you). The amount the US spends to control high blood pressure, some types of diabetics, cancers, joint deterioration, heart disease, kidney disease etc due to people being FAT is huge. You go to Mexico, Canada, Europe you see people walking all over the place. In the US people will drive around a parking lot for 5 minutes to keep from doing a 1 minute walk. Add to the treatment cost, the cost of redoing all are medical equipment to handle individuals that weight 300, 400, 500 ... 600 lb. How much is this adding to those cost numbers and decrease our life expediency??? We give our pre-school and elementary children the choice of drinking chocolate or regular milk and are surprised at the number that are rounder than tall. Take a look to the "Fruit juices" that we feed our kids. Most list 3 or 4 types of sugar before mentioning a fruit.

Spider
12-13-2009, 03:09 PM
Neal, I cannot speak for Canada on this but I am familiar with the British system. It is set up so that everyone has "their" GP. That is the doctor they go to for anything and everything (other than accidents requiring ambulance pickup when the ambulance takes the patient directly to hospital ER.)

By having one doctor, that doctor serves as the gateway to all specialists. If you need a specialist of any sort, your GP will refer you. (Because Britain's healthcare is a dual system - government and private - you can go directly to a specialist, if the specialist will accept you (many will not), and if you are paying privately. Otherwise, you go first to your GP.)

Now, because everyone has a GP and most people go to the GP first for anything, the GP can discuss healthful living. I remember back in the day, my GP recommended I stop smoking, even though what I went to him for was never smoking related. And he didn't dish out drugs willy-nilly like a street-corner pusher. The old joke of "Take two aspirin and call me in the morning," was more common than you might think.

So, Yes, American's are heavier than most Europeans, as you noted, probably for the reasons you state. But that is a medical problem and all part of the healthcare system. I do not accept American obesity as an excuse for the higher cost and poor results, but rather just another example of the failure of the American healthcare system.

ADDED: As for the most talented doctors leaving Canada and going to the US. If America's results are still inferior to Canadian results, even with all those 'most-talented Canadian doctors,' what does that say about the American system? If the Canadian system can still outperform the American system even having lost their 'most talented doctors,' what does that say about the Canadian system?

Spider
12-13-2009, 03:34 PM
As it stands, listening to this morning's news, it looks like the insurance industry has sucessfully screwed the American public yet again, and our congress has failed us yet again. It appears there will be no public option and no universal coverage.

Which leaves me to wonder what IS in the bills presently doing the rounds in Washington? If there is to be no public option and no universal coverage, then to me nothing has changed and no bill is necessary.

The simple fact remains. All other advanced nations have a largely government run system, and America does not. All other countries' systems cost less than America's and gives better results. Therefore, on the plain facts, a government run system is cheaper and better than a private system. We can quibble about the details but the basic facts are staring us in the face.

But that would put an end to the insurance companies screw-fest and they are fighting hard to preserve their golden goose. And congress is helping them. Boy! There must be some tremendous kickbacks being paid!

Patrysha
12-13-2009, 03:48 PM
In Canada, you can go to any doctor. It is preferable for health monitoring reasons that you go to a family doctor on a regular basis for checkups - but you don't have to...you can just go to a medi-clinic and see any doctor at a walk in one or call to make an appointment at the other kind.

If you need a specialist you would need to go to a generalist first to get a recommendation/referral.

Seeing a specialist can be a bit of a pain in the neck as I discovered when my then 9 month old was classed as too skinny and the doc wanted to figure out why (which was a huge waste of $$ in my opinion and led to me finding another pediatrician when I finally figured out I could say no to all the stupid tests)

My father in law recently spent time in a hospital in the States. He was visiting Vegas and got a bone stuck in his throat. He was grateful that he bought travel insurance before heading down!!

nealrm
12-13-2009, 07:26 PM
So, Yes, American's are heavier than most Europeans, as you noted, probably for the reasons you state. But that is a medical problem and all part of the healthcare system. I do not accept American obesity as an excuse for the higher cost and poor results, but rather just another example of the failure of the American healthcare system.

Sorry spider I cannot agree. Excluding those with untreated medical issues, having medical coverage has extremely little to do with someone being overweight. At best, medical coverage is going to treat the medical complication of being obese it is not going to stop obesity. As for this being an excuse, it is not. It is a fact that it cost more to treat obese patents, that obese people have more health issues and that they live shorter lives. Every one on those facts adversely effects the numbers you quoted.

Our system is not perfect, it does need some adjustments. We do need to put some additional safeguards in place to prevent some bad practices by the insurance industry. We also need to encourage more competition in the medical fields and insurance. But instead of spending 500 billion to a trillion dollars to completely redo the current system, I think we could get better results by adjusting a few laws, adding to the current system and spending a few billion on education.

Spider
12-13-2009, 08:57 PM
Interesting comments, Neal. Let me take them one at a time.

1. Excluding those with untreated medical issues, having medical coverage has extremely little to do with someone being overweight.
I agree. That's not what I said, though. I don't make any linkage between insurance coverage amd overweight. Nevertheless, obesity is a medical condition. Obesity is a medical term. And from what I see walking around the streets of Houston, one of the fattest cities in the US, nothing is being done to address it. That is a failure of the medical industry, just as much as if the medical industry ignored illness and death from drug abuse or alcoholism.

2. At best, medical coverage is going to treat the medical complication of being obese it is not going to stop obesity.
I agree. Insurance coverage isn't going to stop anything and it isn't intended to. Insurance coverage doesn't stop automobile accidents, or fires or floods. Why would we expect it to stop obesity, broken bones, heart attacks, influenza or any other medical condition?

3. As for this being an excuse, it is not. It is a fact that it cost more to treat obese patents, that obese people have more health issues and that they live shorter lives.
I agree. And I lay the blame for this on the system. The current healthcare system is set up to profit the insurance companies rather than to cure illness and keep people, or teach them to keep themselves, healthy.

4. Every one on those facts adversely effects the numbers you quoted.
I agree. The numbers I quoted for America are affected adversely by a system that does not focus where it should and serves the wrong constituency.

5. Our system is not perfect, it does need some adjustments.
I agree, except that I would have said it needs some major adjustments or, better, a complete overhaul.

6. We do need to put some additional safeguards in place to prevent some bad practices by the insurance industry.
I agree. You mean like only insuring healthy people and refusing to insure people who are not healthy. Like only insuring some medical procedures and not others. Like accepting premiums and then deciding the patient is not covered after the event. Yes, I think there are some bad practices that need to be addressed.

7. We also need to encourage more competition in the medical fields and insurance.
Now, this one I'm not so sure I would agree with. More competition? We already have 195,000 deaths per year in the US from medical errors. That doesn't include the number of people who were injured by medical errors and who didn't die. What do you think those numbers will be if surgeries were done by the lowest bidder?! ...if emergency room service was accepted from the hospital with the lowest bid? ...if Lab tests were done by the lab with the lowest bid? ...if intensive care was carried out by the lowest bidder? ...if nursing homes and hospices were chosen because they were the lowest bidder? Do you think the number of deaths and injuries from medical errors would go up or down? Do you think the level of care would go up or down?
Competition in insurance? Do you think the lowest bidding insurance company would be more or less diligent at denying claims? ...more or less inclined to cover sick people? ...settle claims faster or slower?
Look elsewhere on this forum and see what HuggyTree has to say about lowest bidders - and that is in a benign field like plumbing!

8. instead of spending 500 billion to a trillion dollars to completely redo the current system, I think we could get better results by adjusting a few laws, adding to the current system and spending a few billion on education.
Again, I don't think I can agree with this one, either. You can see from my previous post, how far the US is behind other advanced countries in what the medical industry manages to achieve. Now, there are some wonderful achievements in some high profile cases. And my hat goes off to the doctors that achieve them. But the ordinary person does not call for these miraculous achievements - they just want to get out of hospital alive! And not be financially destroyed in the process. Adjusting a few laws, adding more to what doesn't work presently, and health education will not be enough to make much improvement, I'm afraid. It is the system that is failing America and it is a system that needs changing.

In my opinion, of course.

Steve B
12-14-2009, 07:02 AM
I think it's quite a stretch to blame the insurance industry for not educating us about the fact that being fat is bad for our health. At some point, we have to take responsibility for ourselves .... don't you think?

I feel that we spend the most on medical in this country and do NOT get very good results at all. But, you should at least acknowledge the argument that it's not exactly an even playing field when it comes to baseline healthy habits which significantly reduces the NEED for a lot of spending.

greenoak
12-14-2009, 08:37 AM
i agree with a bit with both ways to see this...
.and you know we feed our school kids pizza and pop...right in the school...we are really teaching them responsibility....
but my seroius take on the insurance is---- i cant afford to pay it for all my workers and they need it....and i need them..... im in retail..
.im for single payer.... we pay for everything else...like the farmers, the big med companies, the insurance companies get to be virtual monopolies, defense contractors,,,...what about the LITTLE GUY...


ann

Spider
12-14-2009, 09:43 AM
I think it's quite a stretch to blame the insurance industry for not educating us about the fact that being fat is bad for our health. At some point, we have to take responsibility for ourselves .... don't you think?...I didn't intend to blame the insurance industry for not educating us and I don't think I did. The closest I came was -

1. "I lay the blame for this on the system. The current healthcare system is set up to profit the insurance companies rather than to cure illness and keep people, or teach them to keep themselves, healthy."
2. "It is the system that is failing America "

I also said, specifically, "I don't make any linkage between insurance coverage and overweight."
.. and "(obesity in the population) is a failure of the medical industry"

OTOH, the insurance industry is instrumental in promoting education in good driving by offering reduced premiums for taking defensive driving courses.



...I feel that we spend the most on medical in this country and do NOT get very good results at all. But, you should at least acknowledge the argument that it's not exactly an even playing field when it comes to baseline healthy habits which significantly reduces the NEED for a lot of spending.There are other differences that swing the other way, too. I don't know for a fact but I will accept your argument that Canada's population lives a more healthy lifestyle. OTOH, Canada's colder, wetter climate suggests to me a less healthy environment. In Britain's case, yes, they walk a lot and are thus fitter but the population is also considerably older than America's so subject to more illness and more deaths.

You can find all sorts of "mitigating circumstances" if you look hard enough, but, all-in-all, I think these differences are quite minor and won't affect the numbers over-much. The big difference is the way the medical-healthcare system is set up and run.

Spider
12-14-2009, 09:48 AM
...what about the LITTLE GUY...There's a solution to that, Ann - and a very American one, too.


Become a BIG guy!

Patrysha
12-14-2009, 10:51 AM
In regards to the preventative measures.

I was watching a show that showed how in England part of the compensation package for doctors there (under NHC obviously, but it could be adapted by insurance co's you'd think) is dependent on health targets...bonuses for patients who quit smoking and who lose weight over the course of the year etc...

nealrm
12-14-2009, 11:08 AM
Good discussion Spider.

On obesity: Unless there is an underlying medical condition causing the obesity, being overweight is not the fault of the medical system. It is a failure of an individual to maintain his/her weight. I know that personnel responsibility and stating a person failed are both non-PC but, blaming a third party a third party for a individuals mistakes is just plan wrong.

On medical mistakes: I went back and reviewed the numbers you provided and did a little research on there source. First - the rate of medical errors in the US is BETTER than in Canada. Even the numbers you provided show a lower number per 10,000 for the US versus Canada. Second: the numbers are determined by pier review after the fact. There is no standard for judging what is an error. The numbers for the US include cases were the care in hindsight was judged less than optimal. These were mostly matters of profession opinion and not true errors. It should also be noted that a large number of the errors occurred during end-of-life treatments. Over 63&#37; had DNR orders and most of the errors did not alter the final result. Here is a link to a JAMA study (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/286/4/415) providing more information.

Note: None of the above is meant to be interpreted that we do not need to keep lowering the medical error rate.

On competition in insurance: Most of your argument was based on the medical error rate in the US being high - but as show above it is better that Canada. Now lets compare medical insurance with little competition against the highly competitive car insurance. Changing medical insurance for most people is next to impossible. Their employer provides the insurance and that have do not have a choice. The employee using the insurance has little or no incentive to keep costs down because they do not pay the premiums. The insurance has little or no incentive to provide good service to the employee because the company makes the insurance purchasing decision. Final the medical system isn't worried about keeping prices down because the person in the best position to monitor them doesn't care about the price. So we have a perfect storm.

Car insurance on the other hand is cheap and service is generally good. Why - if one company offer the same services at a lower price I can switch with a phone call. If my insurance give me bad service I can switch to one that provides better service.

Last - there is nothing wrong with considering price in medical services. I'm not saying to go with the lowest bidder. However, you should also not use a high-priced plastic surgeon to lance a boil. The goal is to get service that matches the need, not to get the lowest price.

Spider
12-14-2009, 12:28 PM
In regards to the preventative measures.
I was watching a show that showed how in England part of the compensation package for doctors there (under NHC obviously, but it could be adapted by insurance co's you'd think) is dependent on health targets...bonuses for patients who quit smoking and who lose weight over the course of the year etc...That seems logical at first glance, Patrysha, but not when you look deeper into it.

It makes sense for the government to encourage good health, because then the system in total costs less. That is not necessarily the case with a private, for-profit system. Education costs money. Giving premium discounts or giving bonuses reduces profit, but if the insurance company excludes smoking related illenesses, they wouldn't be paying out anyway, so they get no savings on the other end.

Patrysha
12-14-2009, 12:44 PM
Oh yeah...I keep forgetting that part about the profit...it's a very different mindset.

Spider
12-14-2009, 01:43 PM
Good reply, Neal. Let's see how I should address it. Same format, I think--

On Obesity: I agree that obesity is not the fault of the medical system. Neither is catching influenza, but the medical system doesn't refuse to take preventative measures against influenza. The hub-bub over H1N1 is a great example. Where is the medical activism against obesity. I take it as my personal responsibility to not get fat and not catch influenza. But that shouldn't stop the medical system taking action to prevent either, or both.

I always find myself chuckling over the title of this debate, actually - healthcare. Very little attention is given to caring for peoples' health. I find government run systems more attuned to public health, whereas private systems are concerned with curing illness.

On medical mistakes: I found a similar difficulty in coming up with comparative statistics. That's why I attached (Figures in this category are from very broad estimates and are thus no more than a rough guide.) to my figures. They didn't include the same things - some included mistakes made in hospital that resulted in death at home, others counted only hospital deaths. Some excluded deaths in hospital resulting from errors that occurred outside the hospital, others included them. Some didn't include drug interactions. Some didn't separate deaths from non-death errors. As you say, there are no standard measurements. In the end, I took a range somewhere in the middle of the ranges I found and settled on the highest number in the middle range. That was the best I could do.

On competition in insurance: I don't think "most of (my) argument is based on the medical error rate." I can see only once in this thread where I used medical error rate as an argument. (post #70) Several times I used "worse results than others" meaning results in general - there were four other parameters I noted in post #55.

Perhaps you mean, Most of my argument reference competition in insurance. But I didn't mention the medical error death rate at all in this regard. (post 70, para 7, lines 9 and 10.)

Anyway, I am not trying to single out medical errors because of the difficulties mentioned. I am referring to standards and results in general.

Re: auto insurance comparison: You pointed out several of the weaknesses in healthcare insurance by the comparison, and I agree.