Sex workers like Obamacare
Here is a video for you.
[URL]http://www.rgj.com/article/20131122/HOT/131122002/[/URL]
[URL]http://www.examiner.com/article/sex-workers-nevada-embrace-obamacare[/URL]
Retort on a sunny day when I should be out walking
"In general, the maximum tax rate on businesses in these countries is much lower than the USA,"
Companies in northern Europe pay not only a corporate rate but also pay a steep VAT on valued added. There are few loopholes in contrast with the American "system." The effective tax rates that are actually paid in northern Europe are much higher than those in the United States.
"and, as a result of the Obama tax increase, the maximum tax rate on individuals (state + federal) is comparable."
With the exception of Switzerland, people in northern Europe pay much higher income taxes than in the United States at every rung on the income ladder, even in tax-heavy states like New York. Payroll taxes for retirement, health care, etc. are also much higher. Unlike most of the world, much wealth is diverted in the U. S. to lawyers and accountants by playing the loophole game, so the actual tax rate that people pay is much less than the published rates. All those loopholes do not exist in the countries from which we have something to learn. In northern Europe, the hiding of income by small businesses is policed much more efficiently than in the U. S. In addition, Europeans pay a much higher VAT rate on consumption than most states' sales taxes.
"The biggest obstacles to coming up with a more efficient and fair system, by removing loopholes and lowering the corporate rate are President Obama and Harry Reid. Max Baucus (Democrat, chairman of Senate Committee on Finance) would like to get that done." I agree that Harry Reid has frustrated Max Baucus. However, so have multinational corporations who are deeply in the habit of shifting profits overseas and so have some truly entrepreneurial companies who don't like Baucus' new proposed taxes on future investments. Finally many Republicans don't like the Baucus plan because it is revenue-neutral; they want to lower taxes not re-distribute them. Obama is open to the Baucus plan as one of several possibilities. By the way, your Max Baucus was one of the main architects of the ACA. It could be called BaucusCare.
"Given the difference in cultures and given the size of the USA, it's amazing to me that our GDP per capita (adjusted for PPP) is considerably higher than the best examples you could come up with, Denmark, Sweden and Germany." Well, you are correct about Germany but wrong about Denmark and Sweden unless you disagree with the World Bank, the IMF, the CIA, and the UN. While we are at it, I should add Norway to the list as a northern European social democracy with high GDP and quality of life, and other countries with GDP greater than the U.S. but also with government-sponsored health care are Canada and Australia.
Your expectations about the ACA are a complete pipe-dream. We currently spend about 17% of GDP on healthcare. The Congressional Budget Office expects this to go to 20% in future years, with Obamacare. This is ridiculous, given that nobody else spends over 12% and outcomes are worse in the USA than in many other developed countries. Obamacare does very little to reduce costs and improve quality.
"I don't just have expectations; facts are already in. Since the passage of the ACA, the rate of growth for health care expenditures has declined more than any other time in recent history. The main reasons are: a) the ACA has decreased the gouging conducted by the so-called Medicare plus plans that were advocated by Republicans; and b) insurers have finally accepted the fact that pay-for-service is a thing of the past so they are rewarding providers who work efficiently while maintaining patient satisfaction. Yes, health care costs are expected to rise as a percentage of GDP as baby boomers age, but real health care economists (as opposed to talk radio experts and hired guns at the Heritage Institute) are in almost universal agreement that the ACA will decrease costs in relation to what they would have been. When the health care panels are finally set up, despite every Republican effort to block them, there will be other efficiencies based on evidence-based medicine, the standard for the rest of the civilized world. I think it is interesting that you say that health care outocmes are superior in countries with government-sponsored health systems. That is my point exactly.
"Btw, Hong Kong and Singapore have populations comparable to Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland. They have relatively free market economies, and when you take into account where they were 40 years ago, they knock the socks off your examples (and the USA) in terms of economic growth."
Singapore and Hong Kong have had admirable economic growth. However. both suffer a lack of personal liberty: freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom from surveillance. I think they have more to learn from us than us from them. However, international ratings of these freedoms put the northern European countries at the top of the list (here I am not talking about rating systems focusing on narrow views of economic freedom which put Singapore and Hong Kong near the top of the list even though you can get arrested for criticizing the government in Singapore and you have to deal with China pulling the political strings in Hong Kong).
" And the USA has grown faster, with lower unemployment, than the more statist European countries.[/QUOTE]I don't know which countries you define as statist, but Germany, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Canada, and Australia all have lower unemployment rates than the USA Sweden's rate is the same as the USA Furthermore, all these countries provide more supports to unemployed workers and their families than the USA It is true that the USA is beginning to grow again. But the vast majority of economists not paid directly by right-wing organizations will testify that this growth would be much greater if we would have had a jobs bill, infrastructure investment, quicker support for underwater homeowners, and a lack of stupid tricks like shutting down government and confounding business leaders with uncertainty about the debt limit. As I wrote before, the Republicans have done everything they can to make Americans suffer in the belief that Americans will want to give them a chance to show what they can do.
Retort on day when I have lots of time on my hands, as I stopped working when Obama raised tax rates
Okay, I should have said the maximum income tax rate on businesses is much lower in those countries than the USA. If you go back to my original post, I was describing trends. I am not sure if you're correct with respect to the total of all taxes (income tax, VAT, sales tax, property tax, etc.) for which business writes the check but you probably are. However, the VAT effectively comes out of the pockets of individuals in the countries where the tax is levied (it's rebated for exports), just like a sales tax in the USA - the price is passed onto the consumer in the price of the product or service. But this is all trivia. For your most important point, you've got no argument from me that total taxes as % of GDP are higher in Western Europe. That, and the fact that government is larger as a % of the economy in Western Europe is the reason why their economies are less dynamic, grow slower, and have higher unemployment than the USA.
Republicans would be quite happy to get going with revenue-neutral tax reform. The fact that Obama wants to raise revenues is the hold up. I strongly agree the tax code should be modified to elminate loopholes and the armies of accountants and lawyers. (No offence DCCPA, you're one of the good guys.) Most Democrat and many Republican Congressmen don't want this to happen, as it would reduce their power.
You are dead wrong about GDP per capita adjusted for PPP - the CIA, IMF and World Bank all are in agreement with what I wrote, and contradict what you wrote:
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) _per_capita[/URL].
You're having to pick countries with populations with less than 3% of the USA to try to make your points. It's kind of like saying Manhattan and Washington D.C. are more prosperous than California so we should follow their model. That's probably not a good analogy, because those cities are more prosperous than California, while Denmark and Sweden are not as prosperous as the USA. Norway is an oil state and small. It doesn't count, unless you want me to count Dubai, Qatar, etc.
I don't get it. You provide Switzerland, Australia and Canada as examples, and they appear to contradict your case. Compared to the USA, government expenditures as % of GDP are lower for Switzerland and Australia, and Canada is a little higher. All are much lower than northern Europe. If you want to argue that their governments are much more efficient than the Obama administration in what they provide to the public, OK, I'll agree with that. Please note, btw, per capita GDP adjusted for PPP in Australia and Canada are lower than the USA, not higher as you suggest.
Among your examples, the only country of reasonable size and with large government is Germany, whose per capita GDP (adjusted for PPP) is 20% lower than the USA.
I agree government needs to do something different with health care. There's no competition, and costs are way out of hand. However the savings built into Obamacare are like putting a bandaid on a patient that's bleeding to death from a giant gash in his leg.
Economists agree that larger government is correlated with slower economic growth. Some of the suffering you're referring to (e.g. the sequester) may end up being the difference between the U.S. ending up like France versus Greece -- at least it's delaying the day of reckoning with our national debt.
Tatu Hei, Europe, ObamaCare
Tatu Hei, perhaps you have not noticed but one of your examples, Denmark, has the lowest growth rate of all the Scandinavian countries at 0.2% for 2013 and a widening budget deficient. Switzerland continues to do well based on its exports and financial sector as does Germany which is the economic engine of the EU. God forbid the German's get tired of funding other EU countries.
You also seem to ignore the rising cost of healthcare in your target countries of Denmark, Switzerland, and Germany due to an aging population and declining birth rate below replacement percentages, a malady shared by most industrialized countries including the United States.
For the record Switzerland's continued enforcement of their immigration quota system has been called a violation of the 1999 freedom of movement agreement by EU members, while Denmark's immigration policies have been called a possible human rights violation.
If what you say is true regarding the wisdom and benevolence of Europe, how do you explain the catastrophes in France, Spain, Portugal and Italy? We can leave Greece out for now, after all they are Greek.
Regarding your comments about the ACA aka ObamaCare reducing the rise in healthcare costs, please provide some documentation to support this statement, over here we are sure not seeing it.
You seem to dismiss the cancellation of personal healthcare policies in September, October and November as only 2% and a number not deserving consideration. You further assert those polices can now be reissued due to a wave of Obama's magic wand which is not the case as they violate the law as it is written, the several states insurance commissioners are not authorizing reissuance of those policies regardless of what Obama may say as it constitutes a direct violation of ACA as written.
The second shoe to drop will be in late August, September, October and November of 2014 when small business insurance policies are cancelled which affect more than 10 times the number people affected by the private policy cancellations. Would that be a significant number?
Tiny makes well founded arguments regarding taxation and percentages of GDP among the countries you listed. He also makes a very valid point regarding comparing Denmark, Switzerland and Germany to the United States either individually or collectively is comparing apples to oranges due to population size, composition of population, and political structure.
You do make a point which is well received by at least me, the closer to the people those that govern are the more responsive the government becomes, bolstering my point social welfare and healthcare should be taken out of the hands of the federal government and returned to the states, who can not print money and must live within real budgetary constraints, with the possible exception of California.
Once in a while, check in the mirror
[QUOTE=DonB;436918][URL]http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/06/political-left-and-right-properly-defined/[/URL]
For the benefit of those who don't know left from right here is a proper definition.
BTW as probably the only Objectivist in the group I would like to point out that only a complete idiot could could consider me a fascist.
Speak up and remove any doubt.
Don B[/QUOTE]Remove those nose hairs, trim those finger nails, make sure your breath don't stink. And stop the goose stepping.
Same, same, no different!
[QUOTE=TatuHei;436953] How can a patriotic American say that he wishes a President would fail, or that his entire legislative strategy is to prevent a President's re-election?[/QUOTE]And from the NY Times, "Thai protests reflect searing divisions of a changing country". Thomas Fuller, December 3, 2013 (selected).
"Millions of erstwhile farmers have risen into the middle class and clamoring for more representation. The old elite including the established middle class, doesn't want to tolerate their participation. We are educated, and we know best. We know what is right and wrong. But the poor don't know anything. They elect people who give them money.
In all societies, politics need time to adjust to large social transformation, you have to give Thailand more time."
And here at home sweet home, it's "Here we come. Time for impeachment", says the posse. At least, a little more civilized than lynching.
