Market Currents
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan calls his latest budget proposal "an invitation to the...
-
Tuesday, March 12, 7:52 PM ETHouse Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan calls his latest budget proposal "an invitation to the president of the United States, to the Senate Democrats to come together to fix these problems." Democratic Representative Chris Van Hollen says it's a "total uncompromising" blueprint and dead on arrival. Hollen adds a warning to the markets as well, noting that despite the healthy performance of stocks recently, the impact from another stalemate will likely reverse those gains very quickly.
Other date
Latest Macro Articles
This news story has 137 comments:
http://1.usa.gov/YqGEje
Lets start whittling away at their benefits before you start trying to convince the people of this country that we need to have "an adult conversation" on how they want to go back to status quo where health care is 18% of our GDP. SOLVE the problems, both sides!
It is entirely possible we will have both more uninsured and less supply eith higher prices. That always happens when someone tries to micromanage a large and complex system that is non- linear, chaotic (in the math sense), and driven by group psychology. Always.
> nothing is life threatening.
That's how most HMOs in the U.S. work today -- plus they ALSO charge you an exorbitant rate on top of the horrible wait time.
At least the Canadian model is cheaper. :-)
> broad statement. One has to substantiate it with a scholarly and
> up-to-date comparison of the [blah blah blah]
Yet all /you/ have to do is "talk to Canadian folks" and issue conjecture? Seems a bit unbalanced. I'd like to see your scholarly and up-to-date comparisons, please. :-)
For my part, how about this as a start
http://to.pbs.org/14YewrO
Your turn.
I lived in Canada for years - taxes are super high, free medical care was great for the kids' sniffles but terrible for serious issues.... which had to get fixed in the U.S.
Friends with heart attacks are stabilized and sent home rather than fixed.
your comments are getting silly
So now you are spreading more lies? Can't make you point without them?
You never paid so much for something until it was free!
"Much of the appeal of the Canadian system is that it seems to do more for less. Canada provides universal access to health care for its citizens, while nearly one in five non-elderly Americans is uninsured. Canada spends far less of its GDP on health care (10.4 percent, ver-sus 16 percent in the U.S.) yet performs better than the U.S. on two commonly cited health outcome measures, the infant mortality rate and life expectancy."
http://bit.ly/Z6O3ra
Cancer survival rates however are impacted by many different aspects of a healthcare system and thus are good indicators of quality. And yes, waiting times ARE a good indicator, or do you think indicators of service are not important? The fact is that Canada controls costs in part by waiting long enough so that some people DIE before treatment.
Of course. that's why medical professionals everywhere use those two metrics as the right ones.
"Cancer survival rates however are impacted by many different aspects of a healthcare system and thus are good indicators of quality. And yes, waiting times ARE a good indicator, or do you think indicators of service are not important? The fact is that Canada controls costs in part by waiting long enough so that some people DIE before treatment. "
That must be why overall life expectancy is higher in Canada, all those people dying while waiting to treatment. Reality is, if you have a life threatening situation you get first priority in Canada.
Say, you are a funny guy, you know? I really can't debate with someone who is going to say that all evidence to the contrary, the whole world must be lying just to make Govt run healthcare look good.
This is the problem with trying to engage in a rational debate with the far right.
http://bit.ly/Z6O3ra
"The authors begin by examining the evidence on health outcomes. They note that the infant mortality rate and life expectancy are affected by many factors other than the health care system. For example, low birthweight-a phenomenon known to be related to substance abuse and smoking-is more common in the U.S. For babies in the same birthweight range, infant mortality rates in the two countries are similar. In fact, if Canada had the same proportion of low birthweight babies as the U.S., the authors project that it would have a slightly higher infant mortality rate. Thus, the authors conclude that differences in infant mortality have more to do with differences in behavior than with the health care systems."
As for the equitable distribution of health outcomes:
"Finally, the authors examine whether Canada has a more equitable distribution of health outcomes, as might be expected in a single-payer system with universal coverage. To do so, they estimate the correlation across individuals in their personal income and personal health status and compare this for the two countries. Surprisingly, they find that the health-income gradient is actually more prominent in Canada than in the U.S."
As for the other post, I know all the excuses about healthcare equivalency between USA and China. Fact is, we have a market test right here in the USA. Seniors love Medicare, which - gasp! - is Govt run.
It works rather well.
Sorry for the delay in responding.
Your link tells a story of the US health care system being more expensive. But it does not answer our question of whether your statement: "...the Canadian system is cheaper...".
I researched more at this link that shows a detailed description of the Canadian system at http://bit.ly/140kn3B
Scroll down to the bottom, a table shows that the as a % of expenditure paid by governments, US paid 45.5% into its healthcare system, versus the Canadian paying a whopping 69.8%!!!
Of course, one has to take into account of the vastly difference of the two countries. Canada was brought up in the Victorian era and has few blacks in its demographics, vastly different approach in immigration policies, banking, and that there are no private Canadian colleges, only provincial to the point that they foot the bill (in the US even a 'State' U like the University of Michigan only nominally receives a grant of $500M from MI). Canadians in general pay higher taxes at all 3 levels, plus numerous fees, and VAT's.
And so, respectfully, after this research, I am still UNABLE to determine if your statement "the Canadian system is CHEAPER" is indeed, valid.
Your turn, sir/madam
There are many occasions when one seeks to see a specialist in less than life-threatening situations. Case in point, a woman suspects some ailment developing with some symptoms and would like to consult a specialist. A guy developing some hearing loss would like to find out what is going on. The Canadian system acts like that rationing line up ticket at your US postal service, take a token and start waiting. Very frustrating because when that appointment date months ahead is approaching you might find that you could not make the appointment, and you go back to the end of the queue!
You want that? Huh?
Figures.
No one in Canada ever goes into debt because of a needed operation. Those who want quicker access to medical care and have the money to do so, can go to the U.S. where the rich do receive preferential care.
Absolutely, an American would brag about his or her Ivy-educated, whereas in Canada supposedly with no Ivy League Colleges (beside the hidden 4), and they often frown upon those who brag having gone to those 4.
Everybody is equal in a self-style self-righteous socialist utopia!
Really? Pierre Trudeau, Robert Stanfield, and William Lyon Mackenzie King all got their M.A. from Harvard, as did Paul Martin with his M.A. from Princeton.
Talk about the rich and powerful getting special treatment in the USA!
Not at all.
Just for the record, I attended two Ivy Leagues and would definitely be considered as rich in the USA. (I am an US citizen.) So no class envy here. Just plain decency.
And, yes, its so much better if everyone is equally miserable!
But then you didn't really look at the study because you don't want any actual facts, cause you know it all already.
I am certainly dealing with the fact that Obamacare has done nothing to help me. It has made my own health insurance more expensive with no real additional benefits. It has pushed up my taxes, again with no real benefit. And it will make goods and services that I depend on more expensive.
So its not ME who isn't dealing with it.
It's all about you, right Pen?
Me, me, me!
Stop taxing me more and more because people are too damn lazy to get a job.
If the Democrat controlled Senate passes a budget, which they haven't done, then the process can play itself out and we will have a bi-partisan budget. If you want to know why nothing has gotten done in Washington, look at the Senate, not the House.
My bent out of shape comment referred to being upset over Ryan's budget, it is not becoming law, as Ryan said, this is the first step. Now if the Democrats pass a budget, the negotiating can begin.
Also known as the Republican fillibustered Senate.
Just sayin.... :-)
> created a budget the Democrats would have fallen over
> themselves to approve. I don't think that is what their
> constituents sent them to Washington to do.
Indeed, most of their constituents do support something along the lines of Obama's approach:
http://bit.ly/10Kka3S
Regardless, I'm sure that their constituents didn't intend for them to completely obstruct the normal business of the government until they get more spending cuts and tax cuts...
This is the start of negotiating, you don't give anything away in your first salvo.
As for your remark concerning Republican filibusters, filibusters did not prevent a Senate budget, the Democrats not drafting one stopped the creation of a budget. Could it be they don't want to make any of the hard choices needed, the spending cuts or the tax increases. Could it be they prefer the Republicans draft a bill and then criticize what the Republicans have put their name to. It is easier to criticize the other guy than come up with a solution yourself. Let' wait and see what the Democrats come up with, they will have to sign on to more taxes or cuts, what will it be. Let's also wait to see what Senate Republican participation they allow, my guess is none.
----------------------...
Ah, geeze I'm trying hard to remember my civics classes....... Lets see - President submits a budget..... (hasn't happened this year)...... House passes a budget (seems they are working on it)...... Senate passes a budget...... goes to a process of reconcilliation..... budget back to the House for a vote..... then over to the Senate..... then over to the President for his signature.
Is that the normal process your referring to? The one that has died in the Senate each year for the past three?
So the President can now ignore the law and not submit a budget - and at the same time he tells various departments to not enforce laws (in regards to illegal immigrants). Hmmm. You know its this type of behavior we used to refer to as outlandish when brandishing countries as Banana Republics and lecture said country about the importance of institutions and judicial integrity, etc, etc.
How times have changed.
So in essence you buy cooperation (and budget expenditures) with earmarks and you don't have to deal with folks reading the budget or critiquing those expenditures.
So not passing a budget is a strategy to pass some earmarks, frivolous expenditures, and bills that wouldn't stand on their own.
> The budget's goal would be to eliminate all but two income tax
> brackets, one at 10 percent and the other at 25 percent
And I'm sure Mitt Romney's will be the 10 percent bracket. :-)
> Still, Ryan defended the generally unflinching conservatism of his
> budget. "That means we surrender our principles? That means
> we stop believing in what we believe in?"
Perhaps Mr. Ryan would do well to note the difference between "surrender" and "compromise"?
> The tax cuts would be financed by closing loopholes and
> deductions in the tax code.
Does he say *what* loopholes and deductions would be closed?? I suspect some very fuzzy math is involved here...
http://1.usa.gov/YqGEje
In fact, the only "loophole" ever mentioned is this one:
"Close the loophole that allows discretionary spending limits to be circumvented through advance appropriations"
And while this might be a noble goal, it is hilarious that one of the primary ways that this budget is expected to stay revenue-neutral is *never even discussed*.
Faith-based economics? :-)
And our President says his appointees cannot be trusted with 3% discretion in managing some small stemming of the hemmorhage.
Flatten it where it is inflation and per capita adjusted. Put automatic adjustments on entitlements. Flatten taxes and eliminate all deductions. Set a target deficit ratio and let the economy catch up.
We can run deficits and monetize with printing indefinitely. The world won't collapse. It's just that you are thereby putting the tax on the poor.
Since they have no power and nobody rich seems to think fortune or grace were involved and their riches reflect "merit" I predict this is exactly what will happen.
We need a real proposal to revamp our government and drastically improve our fiscal situation over a short period of time
Real proposals to combine and eliminate agencies. Real proposals would include an ALTERNATIVE approach to health care - ie, identify what parts of health care will never really operate as a market (ie emergency care), and propose regulations for that market segment. Then reform hospital and non-profit pricing practices which exist for the sole purpose of negotiating with insurance companies - but them are used to hammer those at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. Throw in some reform of all non-profit organizations in terms of their tax free status and executive pay and you might start to actually impact costs. Oh, and let Medicare negotiate with Pharma companies over price. You know common sense things.
And along those lines - how about eliminating all deductions. Zero, zilch, nothing. 3%, 10%, and 22% federal income tax rates at $0, $35K, and 125K. Capital gains at whatever your normal tax rate is. No more carried interest, no more deductions for all kinds of nonsense - just earn and pay. No government meddling in how you should be living. Want to buy an electric car be my guest. Want to have 12 kids be my guest. Want to contribute to charity be my guest.
Then freeze federal employee pay for real - for three years - no step increases, no GS level raises, no location raises, no nothing! Re-evaluate in three years when compared to the private sector and keep the freeze if needed to at least level the pay between the private sector and those SUPPOSEDLY performing "public service".
Revamp the military over the next 2-3 years - get out of Afghanistan - start closing overseas bases - reduce commands. Let our allies know we aren't going to police and monitor the whole world!
If we don't do something drastic fairly soon - we'll be sitting in 10 or 20 years deciding which program we want - SS or Medicare. And those two plus the military and debt payment will comprise the entirety of the federal government!!!
Then we could turn our attention to beginning to restore our freedoms and liberties..... before the drones start to monitor your every move (literally, between drones and the black boxes in your car - we will be tracked virtually everywhere).
"Restore competition to the energy sector with the goal of energy independence".
Does this mean eliminate ALL subsidies for ALL energy companies including oil and gas? I doubt it!
Oh and BTW Mr. Ryan this is supposed to be a budget proposal, not a manifesto for your 2016 presidential campaign! This document is nothing but political talking point non sense.
These things look like philosophical statements not budgets.... Dems want taxes and Repubs want spending cuts.....
I am all for compromise, i just reject the notion that the Republican are the problem, plenty of blame to go around.
All this "debate" in Washington is to make Republicans look like they're fiscal conservatives to their base, and make Dems look like libs to their base. They're all the same though.
Under that scenario I would not get a tax cut, but let me add, I don't feel over taxed, so I am fine not getting a tax cut.
The spend as much as you want is main issue, too many people in this couintry living off the Government.. I have no problem supporting the truly needy, but too man people are feeding at the Government table.
That wouldn't be a true compromise. If you said R's could cut tax rates for everyone, and D's could spend all they want, that would be compromise. You cannot give one a "blank check", then put stipulations on the other side of the compromise.
As for spending, we can take some measured small steps, that many people would not even notice, to slow down the growth of spending. Slow down the growth of spending and get some growth in the economy the deficit would be in much better shape rather quickly.
A consumption tax will allow the government to control jobs, consumer spending, etc, the same way the Fed controls capital spending. It also taxes the rich far more than the poor.