Socialism = 0, Capitalism = 1

[Xcalibur]

So Canada and even Québec, decided with the suprem court (4 vs 3) that the health system supported by our gouvernement was against the human right chart.

Before, if an operation/medical treatment was covered by our health system, it was against the law to go to a private institution and pay for the service.

A doctor went against the system and now the suprem court told him he was right, it was indeed against the human right.

That is a HELL of a punch directly in the socialism (our supposed pride) system and that alone will COMPLETELY revolution how people will be treated now:

poor = normal system

Middle class: Normal system + private

Rich: Private.

[Hulkein]

I agree that it is against their right to not be able to seek their own private care.

Interesting news.

[Wezas]

I assume the advantages to a private practice would be more experience/technology? It obviously isn't cost.

[Overlord]

Dude, you're still alive??

You act like this is an uncommon system. I guarentee its fairly common place around the world. And besides, where else but Canada would you find a town called:

[Nieninque]

It only becomes a problem when the normal system becomes underfunded.

If the normal system continues to provide the goods, who gives a fuck what rich people are blowing their money on?

[Hulkein]

I wouldn't exactly call paying extra for top-notch healthcare 'blowing' your money, heh. It's not like wasting money on clothes or cars.

[Apotheosis]

Well, just a case in point about healthcare, in Detroit, it's been an ongoing problem over the past 5 years. Basically, what has happened is the following:

Due to poor financial managment, as well as an increase in people who chose healthcare from suburban medical centers, the Detroit Medical Center was forced into bankruptcy of some type.

The majority of people who were using the Detroit Medical Center could not afford to pay for the care they were receiving, and without the middle - upper middle class base to subsidize the poor, well, that is what happened.

[Overlord]

We have some major issues here with dentists going private (Not all mind you but a large number), bloody NHS and benifits can't help cover the cost. Not to mention there are waiting lists for dental treatment over a year long.

[Back]

Could someone please explain this in english? I don’t quite get it.

If the needed care was provided by the state, it was against the law to get it elsewhere? And now, its not?

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Hulkein
I wouldn't exactly call paying extra for top-notch healthcare 'blowing' your money, heh. It's not like wasting money on clothes or cars.

My point is, if the provision is available through the national health service, and that service is reasonably prompt, efficient and good quality, I dont care if people want to spend massive amounts of money getting the same thing somewhere else just with better television and flowery bedsheets. More power to them.

My concern is that when there is money motivating something, the state run stuff tends to go by the wayside, which means more people are promoting the private stuff and the state stuff gets more and more run down.

State run services should be the priority.

[Wezas]

I may be totally off here, but it sounds like people paying for better service possibly at the expense of the national run program.

Hopefully things like being a higher priority on donor waiting lists because of $$$ isn't part of this.

I don't get it.. Against the law to go to a private place and pay? Why should it be illegal to do that? This seems a bit weird to me.

- Arkans

[Overlord]

I don't quite comprehend it myself, its been going on everywhere as I said. Bloody common place, but its never been illeagal as far as I know. Trust the Canucks man

[Apotheosis]

well, this is similar to what happened in detroit, the wealthier (not seriously wealthy by any means, just more financially stable folks) chose to take their business, so to speak, elsewhere. This caused a situation where the Detroit Medical Center was forced into bankruptcy and re-organization. I am still under the impression that medical services are a non-profit organization to begin with, though.

The point is, Nieneque is right... Because people choose better service, whether they have a valid point or it's just a 'perceived' notion, they put the poorer community hospitals in danger. Granted, they're different governmental structures, but the same situation is applying.

There is a strong history of canadians coming to america in order to have operations that they would normally have to wait too long for to recieve in Canada, though, so perhaps Canada needs to take a second look at how their medical system is set up.

There is also a situation where Canadian doctors are getting their liscenses in America because here, they can have a better quality of life.

[Nieninque]

I wasnt saying that the people who choose to go private, put the state-run services at risk. That accolade lies with the Government, as they consistently underfund public services and then point to private services as the better option.

Woah! If I have the money why can't I go to a place of my service? This pisses me off, how dare the state tell me where I can and cannot recieve medical services?

- Arkans

[Overlord]

Well its the same here, but at least we're ALLOWED to do it without repercussion.

That's fine. If someone wants to recommend a state run hospital, fine. The second someone makes it illegal, I'm going to be pissed. If the state can't compete, maybe it should look at why it can't rather than passing bogus laws and possibly providing inferior care.

- Arkans

[CrystalTears]

I'm with Arkans, I'm not understanding this either. Obviously the state medical services weren't cutting it for some so they went to private services and preferred to pay for them. I don't see why it should matter. If anything it would show that the "free" medical services are inferior.

[Apotheosis]

Originally posted by Nieninque
I wasnt saying that the people who choose to go private, put the state-run services at risk. That accolade lies with the Government, as they consistently underfund public services and then point to private services as the better option.

And I completely see a paralell to the situation in Detroit, and probably some other communities, its just that most medical services in America are funded by a> tax exempt non-profit status, b> donors, c> i would hazard a guess at public and research grants, and d> people who can actually pay their bills.

The cost of healthcare in america is outrageous in part for 2 major reasons, there are others, though.

1> Malpractice insurance, this his lead to a situation where some doctors are actually moving out of states because the cost of insurance is too great to sustain how they want to live.

There are also tremendous settlements and awards in malpractice suits, which causes the rates to increase.

2> The fact that hospitals end up charging more to the people who can afford it in order to pay for people who are unable to pay their bill for any number of reasons...

I'm not an expert on this issue, but a> have been exposed to the medical industry from family points of view, local press, and b> a number of conferences and discussions hosted by hospital administrators in the area. (The Univeristy of Michigan in Ann Arbor is one of the largest Research hospitals in the world)

[Nieninque]

Making it illegal is stupid.
But public services shouldnt be inferior (aside from unnecessary material comforts)

Heh, get rid of malpractice suits and you have ridiculous people doing ridiculous things. Have a no-fault claus like the Army does and you have physician ASSISTANTS trying to over rule doctors by giving their own diagnosis. How do you like them apples?

- Arkans

[Apotheosis]

Originally posted by Arkans
That's fine. If someone wants to recommend a state run hospital, fine. The second someone makes it illegal, I'm going to be pissed. If the state can't compete, maybe it should look at why it can't rather than passing bogus laws and possibly providing inferior care.

- Arkans

I don't disagree, I just think the problem with any bureacracy (sp?), whether it's capitalist or socialist, is harder to run then a business because it was set up to be that way. If state run services started treating issues more like a private organization would, perhaps we would see more efficiency in the way things are done. Unfortunately, that would open up a situation where people would be subject to discrimination, as you can see how our current HMO's are shaping up to be.

[Apotheosis]

Originally posted by Nieninque
Making it illegal is stupid.
But public services shouldnt be inferior (aside from unnecessary material comforts)

I think it's only a percieved inferiority.

But, you know, unless someone is forcibly told that they HAVE to work for a particular medical branch, they're probably not going to.

Perhaps a law should be put into place where physicians who study in a socialist country are required to donate x amount of hours per month to help provide some of the care through the state services, or perhaps the private medical organizations should donate time, resources as well as a condition of operating in that country?

i know that shit wouldn't necessarily fly here.

Heh.. It's not just perceived inferiority. State run facilities are almost always inferior to private run businesses and its being shown with people wanting to go to the private ones.

- Arkans

[Apotheosis]

well, then they just need to fix the inferiority problem.

I mean, the point is, the talent will generally seek the best deals they can get unless they're altruistic (rare).

unless the state can afford to pay for as much as the private organizations can for equipment, medicine and labor, then they're basically screwed.. and with the little amount of $$ the state can offer, I can't see a solution to their problem except for taking more money from the haves and giving it to the have nots.

thank god for the 2nd amendment.

And if you do that you start some sort of medical communist revolution. You just can't take sombody's wealth and give it to the state just because the state can't compete. That is just completely wrong.

Unfortunately, state run agencies will never have the money for equipment in salaries. Doing what I do now for the state, I am sure I could make a ton more working in the private sector. How the state manages to compete is with benifits via insurance and easier work weeks, unfortunately, doctors rarely have to worry about money.

Either way, the state run facilities really should be just a "last resort".

- Arkans

[DeV]

Originally posted by Arkans
State run facilities are almost always inferior to private run businesses and its being shown with people wanting to go to the private ones.

- Arkans Eh, or it could be that people don't want to go through unnecessary hassle that comes with going to a state run facility, no matter how excellent their doctors might be.

Take Cook country hospital in Chicago for example. They treat anyone and everyone, insurance or not. It's a state run facility but it is one of the best in Illinois simply because of the quality of doctors and services they provide as a whole. However, I wouldn't go there(unless my life depended on it) for a couple of reasons:
1. I have private insurance and the wait times are around 6 hours, on a good day, just to be seen by the triage nurse.

2. They cater to the poor, a lower socio-economic class of people and those who cannot afford or do not have health insurance for whatever reason. The condition of the waiting room is reminiscent of the type of conditions most of these people live in on a daily. Yes, I'm assuming and probably very correct.

3. The bums, drifters, low-lifes, poor, drug-addicted, unemployed, you name it-they cater to it, are the patients. Someone who has insurance, and a sane mind, would not want to go through an experience such as that just to receive free healthcare unless it's a medical emergeny or they don't want to pay their own insurance company for services.

On that level, I agree, it is inferior and does not attract the type of people who'd want to be treated in a clean and organized environment with a neutral to good bedside manner.

The list is endless, really. I went with a friend once who doesn't have insurance, and still doesn't to this day and I was slightly horrified at first but she told me, it's the norm.

In this case, their quality of healthcare is excellent, but the bedside manner is non-existent, and those types of facilities usually treat patients whos condition has reached the chronic stages more often than just an acute illness or injury.

This utilizes even more resources that may have proved unnecessary if care was obtained even sooner. In essense, these hospitals are treating people for things that regular private doctors should have addressed prior to them needing emergency care. This is not the case in all cases, but for the most part it's part of the problem, here in the US at least.

[Groldar]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Arkans
State run facilities are almost always inferior to private run businesses and its being shown with people wanting to go to the private ones.

- Arkans Eh, or it could be that people don't want to go through unnecessary hassle that comes with going to a state run facility, no matter how excellent their doctors might be.

Take Cook country hospital in Chicago for example. They treat anyone and everyone, insurance or not. It's a state run facility but it is one of the best in Illinois simply because of the quality of doctors and services they provide as a whole. However, I wouldn't go there(unless my life depended on it) for a couple of reasons:
1. I have private insurance and the wait times are around 6 hours, on a good day, just to be seen by the triage nurse.

2. They cater to the poor, a lower socio-economic class of people and those who cannot afford or do not have health insurance for whatever reason. The condition of the waiting room is reminiscent of the type of conditions most of these people live in on a daily. Yes, I'm assuming and probably very correct.

3. The bums, drifters, low-lifes, poor, drug-addicted, unemployed, you name it-they cater to it, are the patients. Someone who has insurance, and a sane mind, would not want to go through an experience such as that just to receive free healthcare unless it's a medical emergeny or they don't want to pay their own insurance company for services.

On that level, I agree, it is inferior and does not attract the type of people who'd want to be treated in a clean and organized environment with a neutral to good bedside manner.

The list is endless, really. I went with a friend once who doesn't have insurance, and still doesn't to this day and I was slightly horrified at first but she told me, it's the norm.

In this case, their quality of healthcare is excellent, but the bedside manner is non-existent, and those types of facilities usually treat patients whos condition has reached the chronic stages more often than just an acute illness or injury.

This utilizes even more resources that may have proved unnecessary if care was obtained even sooner. In essense, these hospitals are treating people for things that regular private doctors should have addressed prior to them needing emergency care. This is not the case in all cases, but for the most part it's part of the problem, here in the US at least.

Nice points.

[Edited on 6-10-2005 by HarmNone]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Arkans
Either way, the state run facilities really should be just a "last resort".

- Arkans Exactly, but as long as you have poor people they will continue using these facilities to replace their "primary care physicians" to treat acute illnesses and acute illnessses that turned chronic because they've waited so long to be treated, and because they lack insurance.

What a viscious cycle.

[HarmNone]

Okay, folks. I've had it with the superfluous insults and nonsense posts. Editing has occurred and will continue to occur. Stay on topic and, if all you have is an insult, take it off the boards.

[Xcalibur]

We're ACTUALLY paying for the public health care, and it's the most expensive system that we're paying.

It's so fucked up that now every damn hospital is merging with others so their budget will be higher and their fees less.

[Fengus]

I'm pretty sure rundown hospitals in Chicago have very little to do with catering to poor or those without insurance and a lot more to do with the commercial collaspe of industrial cities. Since its tax and commerce that fund city hospitals the lack of that will obviously harm the health care, and create the problems you speak of. Your ignorance of this simple relation is disturbing.


Anyway, this news sucks for Canadians, but never fear as your health care drops to sucky levels be assured you'll always have the best health care system in north america. I guess this isn't saying much when the only competition is USA which is proud of having the worst health care system in the world (excluding third world countries).

[DeV]

Originally posted by Fengus
I'm pretty sure rundown hospitals in Chicago have very little to do with catering to poor or those without insurance and a lot more to do with the commercial collaspe of industrial cities.
I'm pretty sure you think you're correct. Chicago is far from commercial collaspe of any sort.

And the hospital is very much not run down. Matter of fact, there are no rundown hospitals in Chicago that I know of personally. :?: I am referring only to emergency medicine at Cook County and what I've seen. Keeping with the flow of the thread.

[Gan]

Houston is having a similar problem with the hospitals that arent located in the medical center area (10 block area where 5 major facilities are located along with 2 med schools and a bevy of other research facilities are). The community hospitals (out-lier hospitals) that were built in what was the suburbs 20+ years ago have seen a shift in patients from the insured/paying patient to the indigent/medicare patient. This has caused a dramatic change in hospital funds and allocations for services. This shift has also caused the building of newer outlier facilities in what is now the further out location of suburbia for those willing to use their insurance rather than spend the taxpayer's money on care they can pay for themselves.

As for the collapse of the Canadian healcare system. It doesnt suprise me that its having dire straits. People have learned the ability to choose and to have a choice in any goods or services that they pay for. It doesnt matter if its paid for through insurance or taxes. And to limit or monopolize something as critical as healthcare that is government run with laws passed by the same government is like building a house of cards in a room full of fans.

Its funny how folks do knock the US healthcare system and yet the US is consistently in the forefront of technology development and application of healthcare advancement. People from all over the world come to the US for treatment for health issues that can not or will not be treated in their own countries. I personally think the US has great hospitals with talented staff ready and willing to take care of anyone who walks through the doors. Not to mention that Hospitals must go through numerous inspections by agencies such as OSHA, State Health Board, and JCAHO. This is based on my direct experience in doing consulting work with Hospitals across the nation with regards to patient throughput and patient care.

And yes it is unlawful for anyone to be turned away from and ED department if their life is in jeopardy because of payment issues for those wondering (EMTALA).

I'm disappointed that I initially skipped this thread due to it being started by X. However, I'm glad I'm getting in on the discussion late so as to miss some of the edited out flames that seem to have occurred.

Originally posted by Nieninque
It only becomes a problem when the normal system becomes underfunded.

If the normal system continues to provide the goods, who gives a fuck what rich people are blowing their money on?
Except for the wait lists. Kinda puts a damper on things.

[Warriorbird]

Eh. It depends on the country you're in. Socialism is pretty nice if you're in Finland.

[xtc]

I will try to explain this as best and objectively as I am able. Tommy Douglas was a Canadian politician who in the 60's wanted to bring socialised healthcare to Canada, which would cover every citizen. Tommy was Keifer Sutherland's grandfather. Socialised medicine was already implemented in much of Europe. Tommy had some setbacks but eventually brought Universal healthcare to Canada.

In 1985 the Canada Health Act was introduced, it stated that it is illegal to charge for healthcare, if it was covered under the National Healthcare system. Thus most privatised Healthcare was illegal. In the early 90's Canadian Doctors applied to have extra billing, which would allow them to charge above and beyond what they got paid by the Canadian Government? They were denied.

In the 90's Canada drastically reduced its total debt, one of the ways it did this was to cutback on healthcare funding (indirectly). Up until then Canada had an excellent well funded healthcare system.

This court case stated that it was against the Constitution to deny citizens access to private healthcare.

We most likely will become like England, with a public healthcare system and a private one. Doctor's will work for both systems but will put their private paying patients first.

In my opinion the healthcare system here was put in jeopardy when Doctors were denied the right to charge patients above what the Canadian Government paid them. It would have ensured the viability of the system and made private healthcare less attractive.

Now all that said, Canada still ranks ahead of the United States for healthcare according to the W.H.O.

[Edited on 6-14-2005 by xtc]

[Gan]

Originally posted by xtc

Now all that said, Canada still ranks ahead of the United States for healthcare according to the W.H.O.

[Edited on 6-14-2005 by xtc]

I have searched all over the WHO website and can not find the ranking list or any articles discussing it.

Would you link me to the ranking list and possibly the criteria used therein? I'm very curious as to the methodology that is used to compare healthcare systems of different countries. I know its based on access to healthcare as well as quality of care but I'd like to see some data as well.

Thanks.

[Fengus]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Its funny how folks do knock the US healthcare system and yet the US is consistently in the forefront of technology development and application of healthcare advancement. People from all over the world come to the US for treatment for health issues that can not or will not be treated in their own countries. I personally think the US has great hospitals with talented staff ready and willing to take care of anyone who walks through the doors.



Technology is driven by money, of course you can pay to get very good health care in US, because its the most advanced nation. But the average Joe does not get that sort of service, the average Joe can't go to another state for health care much less another country. When comparing the health care of one nation to another all its people are considered, and when the bad care of poor outweights the great care of the rich you obviously rank low in the comparison.

[Gan]

<the average Joe can't go to another state for health care >

I disagree with this point. If the average Joe is indigent then he can seek healthcare at any medicare/medicaid facility in any state. If an average insuranced Joe were to go to another state and seek healthcare then he indeed would receive healthcare only it would be at a higher rate (out of area/network rate) for those plans that have that provision, or he would pay out of pocket however much his plan designates as his minimum/maximum amount to pay.

What confuses me the most about your previous post Fengus is that you start off talking about the average Joe then you conclude with the poor. I consider those two very different, thus my reasoning as stated above.

As far as ranking, I would like to see the actual list as well as the metrics. I've found several WHO related sites where the actual metric acquisition and analysis has been called into question not to mention that even WHO officials say that this ranking is new and not all the 'kinks' are worked out of the tabulation and overall comparison.

As for me personally, having seen examples of non-US healthcare facilities/doctors/nurses and other staff, I find that by my own comparison by my own standards I would prefer to be treated if at all possible in the US (non-emergent services withstanding).

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by xtc

Now all that said, Canada still ranks ahead of the United States for healthcare according to the W.H.O.

[Edited on 6-14-2005 by xtc]

I have searched all over the WHO website and can not find the ranking list or any articles discussing it.

Would you link me to the ranking list and possibly the criteria used therein? I'm very curious as to the methodology that is used to compare healthcare systems of different countries. I know its based on access to healthcare as well as quality of care but I'd like to see some data as well.

Thanks.

I am not sure what the criteria is but here is the ranking

http://www.health-int.com/article.asp?pubID=17&catID=96&artID=2751

[DeV]

I think it's also based on the health and life span/expectancy of a country's citizens. I might be wrong on that, but I think it was something like 15+ years ago Americans lived longer than people in other countries.

We're the richest nation and we spend the most on healthcare. It's not too hard to ascertain why the numbers just don't add up. Poverty is a major player all by itself. Access to healthcare is right up there as well.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Arkans
Either way, the state run facilities really should be just a "last resort".

- Arkans Exactly, but as long as you have poor people they will continue using these facilities to replace their "primary care physicians" to treat acute illnesses and acute illnessses that turned chronic because they've waited so long to be treated, and because they lack insurance.

What a viscious cycle.

Or they cant get insurance. In the US I physically cannot obtain medical insurance because of I've been a brittle diabetic for over 10 years.

-Melissa

[Gan]

Originally posted by xtc

I am not sure what the criteria is but here is the ranking

http://www.health-int.com/article.asp?pubID=17&catID=96&artID=2751

Thanks for posting the link. It seems that the doubts expressed in the articles I found regarding the accuracy and viability of the WHO rankings of the major 19 industrialized countries are also mentioned in this article.

With that said I really cant give alot of credibility to the WHO report when debating the quality of healthcare across international borders. Perhaps someday they will standardize a set of valid criteria that can compare all similiar aspects of international healthcare and related demographic information and tabulate them appropriately for ranking.

[Fengus]

Originally posted by Ganalon
<the average Joe can't go to another state for health care >

I disagree with this point. If the average Joe is indigent then he can seek healthcare at any medicare/medicaid facility in any state....

What confuses me the most about your previous post Fengus is that you start off talking about the average Joe then you conclude with the poor. I consider those two very different, thus my reasoning as stated above.


Thats just it, the average Joe is poor. Even the so called middle class is in a relative low class compared to just 50 years ago. Considering total debt, and total income, nowadays both parents work and they are still worse off than 50 years ago. Quality of life is lower and family debt is higher.
This has an effect of our ranking for health, more 30-50 yr olds dying from heart attacks and other stress related health problems. The simple fact that most americans do not even see a doctor regularily, can't afford it and its generally discouraged by HMOs, and clearly is very expensive for those without insurance.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Fengus
Thats just it, the average Joe is poor. Even the so called middle class is in a relative low class compared to just 50 years ago. Considering total debt, and total income, nowadays both parents work and they are still worse off than 50 years ago. Quality of life is lower and family debt is higher.
This has an effect of our ranking for health, more 30-50 yr olds dying from heart attacks and other stress related health problems. The simple fact that most americans do not even see a doctor regularily, can't afford it and its generally discouraged by HMOs, and clearly is very expensive for those without insurance.

I dont agree with your asessments. Do you have sources for the statements you made above or is that your opinion/conjecture?

50 years ago we were riding high on the industrial boom of post war economy. Pollution was probably out the roof, but since we did not measure it - it didnt exist to effect our quality of life right? NOT.

Overall quality of life is only relevant if you compare apples to apples. It would be interesting to see an actual comparison of the lifestyles then with all the variant factors included as it would be now. For one the level of communication is way different not to mention the introduction of the internet and related media implosion as well as computers. Actually, I dont think a valid comparison could exist.

As far as lifespan, you've forgot to include the changes in food production both natural produce as well as preparation (fast food availability). You also forget that folks are living longer (if I read the latest census report right) but thats only to be counter balanced with a growing population with greater means of transportation and other factors that effect health and age longevity. Sure folks are fatter now than they were then, but those who die sooner are counter balanced by those who are living longer - in my opinion.

< The simple fact that most americans do not even see a doctor regularily, can't afford it and its generally discouraged by HMOs, and clearly is very expensive for those without insurance.>

I really disagree here because HMO's are the easiest form of insurance to get. Are they limiting? Yes if you wish to see a specialist or wish to have something out of the norm treated; however, the availability of seeing a PCP under an HMO usually only costs the participant around a $10-$20 copay and that will get him 'seen by a doctor'. Try applying the mass public to the price ranges of speciality insurance or PPO's.

Those without insurance qualify (medicare/medicaid - including those who are NOT US CITIZENS) and can be seen (not without huge wait times at indigent healthcare facilities as trends have shown for non traumatic conditions) but they have to been seen thanks to federal laws and EMTALA regulations.

And when I get the opportunity I will see if I can find the average income of the average joe for the US. I believe I'll be able to show that they are indeed not poor unless you're defining poor as anyone under 15% tax bracket. Half the people who qualify themselves poor (my opinion) probably would not be poor if they adjusted their lifestyles and costs of living comiserate to their earnings.

[Fengus]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Do you have sources for the statements you made above or is that your opinion/conjecture?
...
And when I get the opportunity I will see if I can find the average income of the average joe for the US. I believe I'll be able to show that they are indeed not poor unless you're defining poor as anyone under 15% tax bracket.


That data is easily obtained all over the internet. Here is a bit from a link I'll post below.
"According to the Federal Reserve, in 1990 the richest 1 percent of America owned 40 percent of its wealth -- the greatest level of inequality among all rich nations, and the worst in U.S. history since the Roaring Twenties. Furthermore, the richest 20 percent owned 80 percent of America -- meaning, of course, that the bottom four-fifths of all Americans owned only one fifth of its wealth."

Here's the link:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/4Inequality.htm


Also be sure to find more than just an average income as thats meaninless in this debate. You want it segmented or at the minimum a mean to gauge wealth.

Googling links huh. I suggest you find a news source that makes claims like that instead of a random website.

Did you know people can make stuff up and put it on the internet.

[Warriorbird]

Medicaid's gaining Medicare style copays soon. That's gonna be some shit.

A vast amount of old folks pay sick amounts for Medicare supplement insurance to cover the remaining 20% + excess that Medicare does not pay. They get no prescription coverage till 2006 (which may be axed), and then it'll be terrible...they'll be paying for less savings than what is given out free by drug companies.

The system is pretty screwed. If you haven't planned retirement well, you're fucked. Our generation won't even have Medicare or Social Security. It just isn't possible.

[Jolena]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Medicaid's gaining Medicare style copays soon. That's gonna be some shit.

A vast amount of old folks pay sick amounts for Medicare supplement insurance to cover the remaining 20% + excess that Medicare does not pay. They get no prescription coverage till 2006 (which may be axed), and then it'll be terrible...they'll be paying for less savings than what is given out free by drug companies.

The system is pretty screwed. If you haven't planned retirement well, you're fucked. Our generation won't even have Medicare or Social Security. It just isn't possible.

Yeah it's got my mother all up in a tizzy because she is a Lupus patient who takes around 300 plus dollars worth of medications per month to control her disease and every year the insurance pays less and less of that. It's going to get to the point that she's going to either be paying the entire monthly expense for her meds on her own or she's just not going to get the meds and die earlier.

[Warriorbird]

Tell her to order everything from Canada. Help her find a halfway decent pharmacy to do so. Check and see if she qualifies for your state's prescription plan by income.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Fengus
Also be sure to find more than just an average income as thats meaninless in this debate. You want it segmented or at the minimum a mean to gauge wealth.

I disagree, since we're discussing the income (status) of the average Joe lets look at the average income which would indeed indicate an average status in society.

Lets look at some numbers.

source: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/99in01w2.xls

Tried to paste the chart but it blew, so here's a summary.

1969 - Average Salary: 7,362

1979 - Average Salary: 14,836

1989 - Average Salary: 25,795

1999 - Average Salary: 37,940

SOURCE: IRS, Statistics of Income Bulletin, Fall 2003, Publication 1136. (Rev. 12-03.)

Considering the data represented above, I'd say that the average Joe is not poor, and if they are living within their means (include location, demographics, material wants vs. needs, etc.) then they are indeed average.

[Warriorbird]

Unless of course those numbers are skewed by a limited number of high wage earners.

[Gan]

Take a look at the number of total returns submitted. It would take huge reported wage(s) to skew that data.

as posted on the chart referenced above.

1969 - TTL Returns: 66,700,995

1979 - TTL Returns: 81,695,106

1989 - TTL Returns: 94,368,180

1999 - TTL Returns: 105,486,024

[Warriorbird]

I don't get how number of total returns means anything. How many poor people does Bill Gates count for? You also have to think about inflation/cost of living.

It isn't as rosy as it initially appears.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I don't get how number of total returns means anything. How many poor people does Bill Gates count for? You also have to think about inflation/cost of living.

It isn't as rosy as it initially appears.

Its not that I"m attempting to make it look rosy. Its that if you're going to spike an average encompassing over 100 million sets of data in an average then it must be one HELL of a huge number to spike it. I'm sure someone more versed in statistics could elaborate on how significant data sets have to be with a range of over 100 million entries.

[Warriorbird]

Not that unlikely when you consider American wealth distribution... and the fact that people under a certain income don't file a return.

[xtc]

Europe has a great system of dealing with drugs. They are allowed to import drugs from countries that sell the drug cheaper. Basically it works like this, a company buys the drugs that are cheaper from Spain and imports them to France. The drugs are repackaged in accordance with standards set out by the France's equivalent of the FDA. The drugs are then sold to pharmacies. When you receive a prescription, the pharmacist in France is required by law to tell you that you can buy the exact same drug for 50% cheaper, if you buy the one from Spain. Both drugs are made by the same company, made in the same plant and come off the same assembly line.

I think a system like that could work well in America and help people pay less for the exact same drug.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2004/september/europes_drug_import_.php

[Edited on 6-17-2005 by xtc]

[Fengus]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Fengus
Also be sure to find more than just an average income as thats meaninless in this debate. You want it segmented or at the minimum a mean to gauge wealth.

I disagree, since we're discussing the income (status) of the average Joe lets look at the average income which would indeed indicate an average status in society.

1969 - Average Salary: 7,362
1979 - Average Salary: 14,836
1989 - Average Salary: 25,795
1999 - Average Salary: 37,940


Ok, you are either purposely being obtuse, an idiot, or a complete jerk. Pick one and then we'll see whether this debate is worth continuing. As to why, here's a hint: inflation.


At any rate, average is a useless number in this debate because once normalized for inflation and assuming you pick numbers that aren't mid-depression you will always have a gross increase. This is true merely because GDP and the economy grows from things as simple as more efficient production methods. However, the rich are poised to gain any such growth but you'd never know looking at an average. And since my point was that the middle class are at an all time low in earning power this is obviously keenly relevant.

The data was on the link I posted, refute that or shut up.

[Latrinsorm]

The CPI says that inflation would only bring the 1989 number to $35253.54 in 1999.

As for the link you posted, I'd be careful posting conclusions drawn by a person who describes himself as follows: "I left religion at age 12, and conservatism at age 26, to become the godless pinko commie lying socialist weasel that conservatives find at right. I'm sure that liberals will recognize something of the kindly, gentle, good-humored progressive student I actually am in this photo".

[Gan]

Dear Fengus, I'm not being obtuse. I'm not an idiot. And I'm not being a jerk - but I'm going to cross that line now in saying that you're reasoning is FULL OF SHIT! Not to mention that the site you posted was a)googled when I called you on your opinion/sourcing and b)not from a recognized authority on the subject and c)only cross posted his sources instead of posting data himself.

The problem with the average joe is that he refuses to live within his means and remains comfortable sitting in a shitload of personal debt.

Average is exactly the number we're driving at because I CALLED YOU ON CALLING THE AVERAGE JOE POOR. The average joe is not poor, in fact, the average joe is relatively well off looking at incomes and remember,the dates provided are not 2005 relative dollars but dollars in the year that they are reported. Your little dissertation about GDP while somewhat informative has no bearing on this argument so please put your textbook back in your school locker.

And as for your main point that the average joe is at his all time low in earning power - I'm calling you on that too until you can provide me a VALID SOURCE backing up your hypothesis.

Here's a linke to help you get started on your response.
http://www.google.com

And just so we remain on the topic of this debate within the debate. I called Fengus on his opinion that the average joe could not afford healthcare. This is found on the previous page.

[Edited on 6-18-2005 by Ganalon]

[Warriorbird]

Eh. The poorest people still aren't having to file a return in this.

[Gan]

According to the US Census. Poverty thresholds for families based on 1999 values is as follows.

Household demographics:

One person under 65 no children: 8,667 annual IBT.

Two person under 65 no children: 11,213 annual IBT.
Two person under 65 1 child: 13,289 annual IBT.

More values can be found at the following source:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/histpovtb.html

Compare the poverty line with the average income of 30K in 1999 dollars. These numbers lead me to believe that the average Joe is not in poverty because of earnings. In my opinoin the average Joe feels he's in poverty because of his income to debt ratio.

As far as some not even turning in records to be recorded via census or income tax. Yes, there are some that dont even make enough to have to be required to submit. I dont know that its a huge factor in offsetting the national average of income reported when we're looking at data sets of over 100 million entries. The same can be said for the 2% of the population that are the richest. That 2% also represents only 2% of 100 million entries into the same data set. Therefore the overall average would see only a small impact rather than equating the average income reported to equal the actual poverty line (a variance of ~18K in income).

The only reason why I've pursued this tangent to the original topic of this thread is that some love to generalize such inflamatory topics as poverty, healthcare, and the like. I hate globalization. Look at the data, compare the data, and form an opinion with real facts, not what you've heard somone else say or from some off the wall blog by someone who does not represent an authoritative stance.

[Edited on 6-18-2005 by Ganalon]

[Warriorbird]

Hey, none of my comments have been based off of "someone else's statments" just a little knowledge of the fact that people under a certain level of income aren't actually going to be part of the "average income of TAXPAYERS." It doesn't mean the average US income.

While at times I may quote sources and post links, it is usually more due to amusement at someone else's observation.

The hyper rich also contribute to those totals. I think the percentage of the population in poverty is greater than them, as well.

[Edited on 6-18-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Fengus]

Originally posted by Ganalon
a)googled when I called you on your opinion/sourcing and b)not from a recognized authority on the subject and c)only cross posted his sources instead of posting data himself.


That link was just a well written example of the kind of real data that exists. The information you posted is meaningless as stated and most likely designed to mislead. Both things I dispise.



Average is exactly the number we're driving at because I CALLED YOU ON CALLING THE AVERAGE JOE POOR. The average joe is not poor, in fact, the average joe is relatively well off looking at incomes...

If you are basing you opinion on the numbers you posted you are a fool, those do not take into account inflation, so are not comparable between themselves.

And be careful when talking about average income and the average joe. the former is a mathmatical concept the latter is a human being. Average Joe's income is not the average income, realize this simple fact and you will gain enlightenment. This is Logic 101 which you must not have chosen as an elective.


You posted the irrelevant data, however therein lies the proof of my statement, get it normalized for inflation and you will prove my point for me. And don't shift the burden of proof on me at the same time disclaiming my sources. You make the refutation, you find the proof that supports your claim.

[Gan]

My sources were from the US census and the IRS. Yours was from somebody's blog.

If you want to go around using someone elses efforts which are not published or recognized as a legitimate source of information then you're delusional.


Originally posted by Fengus
Average Joe's income is not the average income, realize this simple fact and you will gain enlightenment.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Do you honestly understand how stupid you sound?

Actually, I took two clases of logic thank you very much, and passed with flying colors thank you very much.

However, the logic you're using to discuss economics obviously leads me to belive you're major emphasis was in underwater basket weaving.

Until you can come up with anything resembling a legitimate source to back up this wild theory you have I'm just going to sit back and enjoy the amusement of your posts for the idiocy they are.

[Edited on 6-18-2005 by Ganalon]

[Gan]

Furthermore, let me show you how these incomes look when adjusted for inflation.

1969 average salary: 7362
1999 average salary: 37940
1969 average salary adjusted for inflation to 1999: 34275.45

Even after adjusting for inflation the average income is still showing a slight improvement over what was reported by the IRS on their own fucking website you idiot.

Now go back and you'll see much the same if you were to adjust the 50 or so years you initially used as the meat of your hypothesis.

So, even though you're smart enough to know that the defination of inflation is the increase of the amount of money in circulation, if you compare the average wages as reported by the IRS to the actual poverty levels as reported by the census bureau then you'll see that as I stated before. The average Joe is not poor.

If I have to give you any more lessons I'm going to start charging you for tuition.

[Edited on 6-18-2005 by Ganalon]

[Warriorbird]

Pff. Ignore him. I'm still sticking to the notion that that doesn't really apply to the "average person", but the average person who's paying taxes, which isn't exactly the average you are chasing.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Pff. Ignore him. I'm still sticking to the notion that that doesn't really apply to the "average person", but the average person who's paying taxes, which isn't exactly the average you are chasing.


I agree that taxes and the reporting of only represent those who are obeying the law and are filing... or those who make enough to be required to file. I also think that the numbers arent 100% true because people dont necessarily report all of their earnings, but they do represent enough for my comfort level in debating poverty and average income.

I would like to see an estimated number of income units and their amounts that were not required to report taxes - that would help reflect the really poor not represented in this data set. Only I dont think thats recorded unless the census has that somewhere.

Not that income derived from illegal pursuits is tracked anywhere, but possibly from arrest/seizure records... but legalizing and or commercializing the sale and distribution of controlled substances by urban professionals would also be a)interesting to see and b)would represent an interesting impact on sales tax and income revenue. :lol: [Disclaimer: that last statement is said with extreme tongue and cheek and with full realization of the dangers to society as a whole it would represent.]

[ElanthianSiren]

What I find ironic in our system is that the individuals who need healthcare most can't get an adequate amount... like the woman's mother who has lupus and people with chronic conditions. There are no numbers that can justify that to me in the wealthiest country in the world.

Here's where you're free to tell me to move if I don't like it! I dont' know about move, maybe I'll work on changing it instead.

-Melissa

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by xtc
Europe has a great system of dealing with drugs. They are allowed to import drugs from countries that sell the drug cheaper. Basically it works like this, a company buys the drugs that are cheaper from Spain and imports them to France. The drugs are repackaged in accordance with standards set out by the France's equivalent of the FDA. The drugs are then sold to pharmacies. When you receive a prescription, the pharmacist in France is required by law to tell you that you can buy the exact same drug for 50% cheaper, if you buy the one from Spain. Both drugs are made by the same company, made in the same plant and come off the same assembly line.

I think a system like that could work well in America and help people pay less for the exact same drug.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2004/september/europes_drug_import_.php

[Edited on 6-17-2005 by xtc]


We have that here too, something called "Médicament générique".

There's 2 problems, though:

1) It's up to the pharmacian, so if the guy has bought many X pills at Y price, he won't let em go cheap so the cheapest WON'T be advised.

2) It does sometimes has flaws with the pills in question and we often saw some of em being take out of the market.

[Jazuela]

Only read some of the first page, so someone point me to a post that explains this, if there is one.

Canada takes a heap of taxes from everyone's paycheck. A portion of those taxes goes to pay for health care. So - everyone is paying for the "free" socialized health care, whether they use it or not.

Now - we have some rich people, who want to pay *extra* for private care.

They are -still- paying into the socialized free system, regardless of who they choose as their physician. This means, that the money is going to those public hospitals and doctors, but the hospitals and doctors aren't expending any money in treating those patients who choose to go to a private place.

Doesn't that result in the public/free/socialized places having MORE money, and not less? Because - they get the cash, but they don't have to spend as much of it, because they're not getting the patients who require the treatments.

Someone splain please?

its socialism, it does not have to make sense just as long as the state runs everything.

[Back]

Originally posted by Dave
its socialism, it does not have to make sense just as long as the state runs everything.

What, like the military?

HAHA TROLL ALERT!

:troll:

No the military is more of a communist organization in its structure.

[Warriorbird]

Eh. Depends on which communism you are referring to.

[Gan]

Well, according to the Poll, Canada is in the lead with 18%, Socialism a few lengths back at 9% and capitalism bringing up the rear in this three legged race to see which is worse.

Sorry Canada, sucks to be you since you are stuck with 2 of the leading/available 3 choices.

:violin:

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Eh. Depends on which communism you are referring to.

Dosent matter which "kind"
its communist in its structure.

[Warriorbird]

Actually, Dave, every different occurence of Communism has had different aspects. But you're a conservative, so you'd never appreciate things like history or details.

You could just as easily compare it to a union hierarchy or an Amway hierarchy or a KKK hierarchy. Not trying to be offensive with any of those, but you could.



[Edited on 6-20-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
But you're a conservative, so you'd never appreciate things like history or details.
[Edited on 6-20-2005 by Warriorbird]

Yes, all of us who fit in the conservative, neo-conservative, or even moderate conservative viewpoint have no appreciation for history or details.

NOT!

Thanks for playing the generalization game though.

[Warriorbird]

I mean...not like you ever do it.

[Artha]

That must make it ok.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I mean...not like you ever do it.

I actually try not to, since the appreciation of it doesnt sit well with me.

[Fengus]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Furthermore, let me show you how these incomes look when adjusted for inflation.

1969 average salary: 7362
1999 average salary: 37940
1969 average salary adjusted for inflation to 1999: 34275.45

Even after adjusting for inflation the average income is still showing a slight improvement...



Oh, nice, 30 years and a 10% increase in reported income. Thats small even if it mattered. Now, whats the GDP growth for the same years, and break that data down by income bracket. While you can spout curses you can't seem to think in any useful way. (Additionally that increase could be explained as simply as better IRS methods, or more enforcement.)


Here is why average is a pointless misdirection, just some random values here to illustrate a point, out of 5 incomes we have:
1969
100,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
Average equals 48,000
1999
200,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
Average equals 48,000


While this is obvious to most teens you seem to lack the critical thought necessary to realize an average is a worthless number when talking about actual people and groups of people that the average is representing.



Until you can come up with ... a legitimate source to back up this ... theory ... I'm just going to sit back and enjoy more bacon.

Legitimate source? Thats the dumbest thing I heard this year. If the source is "illegitimate" then you should have no problem refuting its claims. And by what stance are you saying its not legitimate, you think the values are wrong, that must be based on something, where is your reason or evidence for disbelieving the articles on that link? At least Latrinsorm mentioned why he doesn't believe that data, of course his statements have no basis in logic. (That is, a persons religious stance has nothing to do with an article written about economics and politics.) And if you think it does, then you are a sad person, who should have their right to vote revoked, although I dissapprove of that concept.




ANYWAY I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR ISSUE IS BECAUSE ALL THE DATA SOURCES ARE SITED IN THAT ARTICLE.

So what exactly are you trying to say? That you can't read? That you believe this person sited the IRS and Census yet fabricated numbers? That the site I linked has a different idelogical perspective than yourself therefore it must be wrong?

Did you check the sited sources and find errors in the authors methods or data? If not then you are just another bullshiting armchair conservative without a clue and without a mind of his own.


At any rate I find that website to be adequate in describing the point I was making about the decline of the middle-class. There are many that describe the same issue, and there are lots of books on the subject.


Whats most sad, and the only real reason why I continue what appears to be a pointless debate with a rock, is that you are almost certainly middle class, but have been so distracted with non-issues that you aren't even aware what you've lost.

[Artha]

I've seen the light! Your boundless arrogance and superiority complex have shown me the way! Praise be to Fengus!

[Gan]

Dear Fungus,

You're so idiotic its amusing. You've missed the point entirely and why the averages are important to the analgy you first posted. I'm not going to re-hash it. Please re-read the posts and look at how the numbers play out.

As for your theory that I"m middle class. Well, my family comes from middle class. However, I more than tripled the national average last year in earinings (not counting my wife who made more than me last year in gross earnings). I have a BS in Economics. And I still think you're talking out of your ass. With that said, I really dont care what class I am. I just know that your analagy that the average joe is really poor sucks a squirrel out of a 200 foot redwood tree.

Come up with your own theories and quit armcharing someone elses blogs. And as I said, post some real sources, do some real math, and come up with some real conclusions. And try not to google your efforts this time. If I catch you cheating I'm going to charge you double tuition and require a 3 page essay on why you've got such a thick head.

Rock indeed. :lol:

Furthermore, GDP, Gross Domestic Product, is made up of 4 categories. Consumer spending + Investment + Government Spending - Trade Defecit. GDP while suseptable to the effects of national wage averages, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DIRECTLY AFFECTING HOW MUCH THE AVERAGE JOE MAKES IN REPORTING WAGES OR HIS STATUS AS POOR, MIDDLE CLASS, OR RICH YOU THICK HEADED MORON!!!

GDP can effect market pricing which will effect cost of manufacturing and distribution which can effect how far joe's overall disposable income can go - but it does not directly effect his income status, his EIBT. Get the fucking cheetoes out of your ear and listen to me, or better yet... Instead of googling up someone elses blog, google up the definition of GDP and do some analysis of your own.

Rock indeed. :lol: You're so funny its painful.

In fact, I did a quick google of GDP knowing that you wouldnt and look at the first site I see and what it says regarding it.

source:
http://www.moneychimp.com/glossary/gdp.htm

"The gross domestic product includes enough sub-components that just looking at trends in the bottom line GDP number can give you a misleading idea of what the economy is actually doing...."

So even if you've decided to shift the point of debate from how the average joe is to how the economy is doing you're still on the wrong track. Find another indicator to base your wild mushroom theories on, then perform some due dilligence so you'll at least know what the hell you're talking about.

[Edited on 6-20-2005 by Ganalon]

[Fengus]

Originally posted by Ganalon
And try not to google your efforts this time.

Using knaledge on the intanet is nawt allowed, that would be like reading a book or sumpum. That just can't be, at least not in Texas, ya hear? <sound of pistol shots into the air ala the Simpson's Texan>




Furthermore, GDP, Gross Domestic Product, is made up of 4 categories. Consumer spending + Investment + Government Spending - Trade Defecit.

Of course income has nothing to do with my spending, my investing nor my income taxes. So that must not have any bearing on GDP. You claim to be an economist?


In your haste to insult you seemed to have overlooked something, that is, the main thrust of my post. I posted a link that supported my view that the middle class has lost ground since 1969, and has a wealth of statistics and references to show this trend, and you post a few reported income numbers from the IRS that were not even adjusted for inflation, and you say my chosen reference isn't legitimate. I'll reiterate, you cannot shift the burden of proof onto me, you claim its not legitimate therefore you prove your own god damned point.



Also, a small point, thats not a blog, are you internet challenged? Have your children explain to you what a blog is.


And another thing, go back and read my original post I said relatively poor clearly the middle class is not begging for dimes at the subway station, but when the CEO is making 17 times more than the worker, that worker is relatively poor. That is to say, the CEO is *not* working 17 times harder, does not have 17 times more stress and is not 17 times more rare. So for what reason is the CEO getting a larger portion of the company profit?


I see now you are one of those fools that bought into the new American Dream, and you aspire to get those high rewards someday. Good luck!

[Gan]

Whatever retard.

I'm done arguing with you. You've obviously lost your grasp on what you're defending much less what you're posting about.

Just do us all a favor and STFU?

[Edited on 6-21-2005 by Ganalon]

fengus, he showed you up, crawl in a cave and hope people forget about it. You can't save face anymore by trying to grasp at straws.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Dave
crawl in a cave and hope people forget about it.I believe that's known as "pulling a Tabor".

[Liberi Fatali]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
I believe that's known as "pulling a Tabor".

It would appear your beliefs are about the same as your intelligence -- severely lacking.

[Warriorbird]

So... you were looking for your real voting card?

You can join an elite echelon that features OJ Simpson!

[Edited on 6-22-2005 by Warriorbird]

Originally posted by Tabor

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
I believe that's known as "pulling a Tabor".

It would appear your beliefs are about the same as your intelligence -- severely lacking.


Where is the voting card.

[Fengus]

Originally posted by Ganalon
You've obviously lost your grasp on what you're defending much less what you're posting about.


I haven't lost a thing, the middle class is weak, and has been since mid-80s. Everyone except your elite upper class rich will say that, err, thats not correct, all but the upper class and any others too foolish to see the obvious or too young to know better.

You should have just shut the hell up instead of posting that weak ass cop-out, next time since you know you lack the insight and fortitude just don't open your mouth to begin with and then I won't have to waste my time talking to a rock.

[Back]

Uh, I’ve been called out on my registration status, and my baking skillz, but there is no way in hell I am scanning that shit. Sorry, personal. kthxbai!

If I meet you in person I might, if I deem you sane.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Fengus

Originally posted by Ganalon
You've obviously lost your grasp on what you're defending much less what you're posting about.


I haven't lost a thing, the middle class is weak, and has been since mid-80s. Everyone except your elite upper class rich will say that, err, thats not correct, all but the upper class and any others too foolish to see the obvious or too young to know better.

You should have just shut the hell up instead of posting that weak ass cop-out, next time since you know you lack the insight and fortitude just don't open your mouth to begin with and then I won't have to waste my time talking to a rock.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Gan]

Ok Fengus, by now its obvious that you want to have the last word so I'm going to keep egging you on a little. So while you're thinking of your next witty retort please also give us your background as it relates to economics. What is your degree in, providing you even have one?

Now, my next lesson on economics tailored especially for you (well, almost since it would be optimal if someone read it to you for you to get the whole grasp), is a list of the leading seven (thats five fingers on one hand and two on the other, Fengus) are as follows:

1. Inflation (CPI)
2. Industrial Production
3. Retail Sales
4. Consumer Confidence
5. Manufacturing
6. Jobs Growth
7. Leading Indicators (5 specific: unemployment claims, building permits, avg weekly manufacturing hours, new orders for nondefense capital goods, and manufacturers new orders)

I understand you're confusing the GDP which looks at different trends of the market (see my previous post for what makes up the GDP) and you'll understand that its not specific enough to do the job of forecasting correctly where the economy is heading much less accurately pinpoint what the economy is doing now.

Yes we've traded insults and its been fun, but now its boring. Either accept that using the GDP as a leading economic indicator is not as accurate as one could be, or not. I dont care how you think, but definately expect me to call you out on the accuracy of your statements if you continue to post them here and expect acceptance from everyone.

[Fengus]

Originally posted by Ganalon
...but now its boring.


Its been boring from the beginning but I can't allow misinformation to be spread without some debate.

Go back to your cube and get to work. Someday that $100,000 income will be yours, but too bad when you figure your lifetime earning average it will still be too low to qualify you for upper class.

[Gan]

:lol:

no cube here, I'm a consultant, when I'm not travelling, I'm at home. And I've already passed that salary mark and yet I'm still not striving to be part of any upper class. My focus is entirely on making my wife and kids comfortable.

Thanks for playing all the same. And you still did not mention your economic education or background. I'm betting you did not even finish college. hahahahaha. You're sadly funny.