Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We're Rich, You're Not. End of Story.

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–119 of 119 posts

Re: We're Rich, You're Not. End of Story.

#111

Post by michael_dorfman »

zackattack wrote: post #97
michael_dorfman wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an American living in Norway, and I can confirm half of what you write: the costs you describe are pretty accurate. However, you drop the ball when you write "It's not affordable unless you're absurdly wealthy." The fact is, the salary range in Norway is high, and quite compressed. Everyone can afford to make lasagna.

Are you KIDDING me? How is this possible? Can you please tell me exactly how much ingredients cost, and what a typical starting salary is for a college graduate in Norway? Not to say "I don't believe you", but I'm incredulous. This is shocking. P.S. Why are you an American living in Norway? How is it?

My wife is Norwegian. I've been here 12 years, and love it.

In terms of salary: I've never heard of a college graduate making less than 250.000NOK = $43,000 USD, even in the most trivial, entry-level job. Note that that's for 32.5 hours/week, with 5 weeks paid vacation and full health care included.

I don't have the lasagna ingredient prices available at home (most items don't have price tags, but shelf-tags at the store), but I can tell you that gasoline is over $7/gallon, if that's something to go by.

Re: We're Rich, You're Not. End of Story.

#112

Post by pedrocr »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #91
pedrocr wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That assumption is rather dodgy on a couple of points. I thought so too, that is why I pointed it out. >One is that a lot of healthcare and education in the US is tax-supported. It may very well be but less of it is compared to Scandinavia so the point is the same. >Another is that a rational person may choose to spend money on things other than healthcare and education. Forcing them to spend it on healthcare and ed…

Very true of course, but then you can't really argue that the Scandinavians are worse off because they can buy less retail goods because they put more money into their government to get healthcare and education. Actually you can. That's part of the deadweight loss of taxation: you are forced to spend money on stuff you don't want and are unable to spend on stuff you do want. If person X would choose to spend $100 on…

Actually you can. That's part of the deadweight loss of taxation: you are forced to spend money on stuff you don't want and are unable to spend on stuff you do want.

(...)

Now, in a democracy, people in the situation of person X may only make up 50% - 1 of the population, but that doesn't change the fact that they lose.

That is all true of course. What I was pointing out is that the democratic group decision to spend more on healthcare is also a spending decision. The counterpoint is what you mentioned, that 50% - 1 could be against it. In Scandinavia however you will find that support for the welfare state is very high. Another important consideration is that the public healthcare in these countries tends to be much more efficient per person than the one you get for you private dollars otherwise. You could of course argue that that is just the market currently being inefficient.

Re: We're Rich, You're Not. End of Story.

#113

Post by pedrocr »

anamax wrote: post #104
pedrocr wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That assumption is rather dodgy on a couple of points. I thought so too, that is why I pointed it out. >One is that a lot of healthcare and education in the US is tax-supported. It may very well be but less of it is compared to Scandinavia so the point is the same. >Another is that a rational person may choose to spend money on things other than healthcare and education. Forcing them to spend it on healthcare and ed…

> >One is that a lot of healthcare and education in the US is tax-supported. > It may very well be but less of it is compared to Scandinavia so the point is the same. Not so fast. You wrote "It does then compare retail consumption which shouldn't include any of these things and thus be more objective." You otherwise assumed that health care is largely private in the US. It's not - it's about half public. Moreover, th…

Not so fast. You wrote "It does then compare retail consumption which shouldn't include any of these things and thus be more objective." You otherwise assumed that health care is largely private in the US. It's not - it's about half public. Moreover, the public spending is concentrated on the poor. So, they're getting govt healthcare and buying big screen TVs.

What I assumed and is true is that healthcare is more private in the US than in Scandinavia, which it is. So the argument still holds that if you are comparing private spending in the US that will include more healthcare than in Scandinavia. Retail spending however will not as you don't buy healthcare as a retail good.

>As someone else has posted, the "not get cancer" stuff, which isn't due to health care, overmatches what happens when you get cancer, which is when health care matters.

What makes you think "not get cancer" has nothing to do with healthcare? Two very large healthcare factors come to mind. If you die sooner from another illness you won't get cancer and if you get continuous preventive medicine you won't get as much cancer. Diet and other unrelated factors will be important as well but "not getting cancer" has a lot to do with health care.

The other flaw in the whole "cancer survival is higher so healthcare must be better" argument is that although cancer is a very important illness it is far from the only important one and not even the major cause of death. Having very good cancer survival rates could just mean that the US healthcare spends an irrational amount of resources on it, neglecting other diseases. But I don't really know.

Re: We're Rich, You're Not. End of Story.

#114

Post by potatolicious »

sethg wrote: post #99
potatolicious wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Yet respondents states that Canadians dislike America on a whole more since Obama took office than before, and that Canadians feel less safe visiting the US than before." Funny you mention that. I just took a train tonight from Vancouver Canada, to Seattle WA. The difference between the two places for night and day, and what you just said sums it up perfectly. When I got on the train on the Canadian side, the stree…

I've never been to Seattle but it wouldn't surprise me if, in general, the homeless tend to congregate in or near major train stations. They're open 24/7; they're warm; the opportunities for panhandling are good (because of the number of people passing through).

Out here the homeless are just all over downtown. Without being a city planner I'm not really qualified to say why, but I have some pet theories:

- Seattle's transit sucks. It's one of the worst in any city I've ever lived in. This plus the lack of any natural borders around the city (mountains, large bodies of water, etc) has resulted in massive suburban sprawl, leaving downtown to rot. Unlike most cities, downtown is not a hub nor a destination.

- As a result of this, there's very little in the way of commercial development that you would see in most cities. Where you would see the hip shopping district in most cities, bustling with people day and night, downtown Seattle is mainly office buildings, and thus completely deserted at night. There is no such thing as the restaurant/hangout district that I've seen in just about every other city I've been to.

- Lack of social programs and policing have resulted in major arterial streets being taken over by aggressive panhandlers and drug dealers/users at night. People stay home as a result - I know many people who admit to staying home at night because of sketchy characters milling about. This adds to the desertedness, which further harms potential commercial development.

Seattle as a city is perhaps 30 years behind in its civic development. Even with the new light rail system there is still no effective way for most people to get downtown - the entire city reeks of crime, poverty, and dirtiness. Walking downtown you don't get the impression of a bustling, growing city - you see a city in slow decay, desperately trying to hold onto the image of better times.

Re: We're Rich, You're Not. End of Story.

#115

Post by mpf62 »

scotch_drinker wrote: post #88
yardie wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize the US has one of the highest debt to income ratios in the world. So while your friends aren't drowning in debt, the picture for the rest of the country doesn't look so rosey.

Got a link? It doesn't seem quite as clear cut as you paint it. http://www.creditloan.com/blog/americans-debt-to-income-rati...

The article you linked to does only look at static data. That’s to simplistic. What if you factor some dynamic data into that equation?

For example Germany: this country exports about 20% more of value than it imports per year, while the US imports about 60% more of value than it exports. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...

Doesn’t look so bad for Germany anymore if you consider there will be a tomorrow, does it?

I know, this is a simplification to, but it’s up to you to investigate further using a little more trustworthy source than something like “Loans & Debt Consolidation - Get Cash NOW!”

Re: We're Rich, You're Not. End of Story.

#116

Post by yummyfajitas »

pedrocr wrote: post #112
yummyfajitas wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very true of course, but then you can't really argue that the Scandinavians are worse off because they can buy less retail goods because they put more money into their government to get healthcare and education. Actually you can. That's part of the deadweight loss of taxation: you are forced to spend money on stuff you don't want and are unable to spend on stuff you do want. If person X would choose to spend $100 on…

Actually you can. That's part of the deadweight loss of taxation: you are forced to spend money on stuff you don't want and are unable to spend on stuff you do want. (...) Now, in a democracy, people in the situation of person X may only make up 50% - 1 of the population, but that doesn't change the fact that they lose. That is all true of course. What I was pointing out is that the democratic group decision to spend…

Support for "the welfare state" in the abstract is irrelevant. The relevant question is "would person X purchase retail goods or health care if given the choice?"

People might support the welfare state for various other reasons, including signaling [1], compromise and ignorance [2]. Regarding more efficient public health care (assuming it to be true for the moment, I've seen no compelling evidence for this), all this does is reduces the deadweight loss by lowering the price of the unwanted goods.

[1] I voted for X because I'm {religious/moral/not racist/hard working/$OTHER_TRIBAL_IDENTITY}.

[2] This is due both to politicians lying ("I won't force people to buy health insurance they can't afford") as well as to people not having a clue ("death panels").

Re: We're Rich, You're Not. End of Story.

#117

Post by anamax »

pedrocr wrote: post #113
anamax wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> >One is that a lot of healthcare and education in the US is tax-supported. > It may very well be but less of it is compared to Scandinavia so the point is the same. Not so fast. You wrote "It does then compare retail consumption which shouldn't include any of these things and thus be more objective." You otherwise assumed that health care is largely private in the US. It's not - it's about half public. Moreover, th…

Not so fast. You wrote "It does then compare retail consumption which shouldn't include any of these things and thus be more objective." You otherwise assumed that health care is largely private in the US. It's not - it's about half public. Moreover, the public spending is concentrated on the poor. So, they're getting govt healthcare and buying big screen TVs. What I assumed and is true is that healthcare is more pri…

> What I assumed and is true is that healthcare is more private in the US than in Scandinavia, which it is.

You're ignoring the fact that US poor get govt healthcare. Unless you want to argue that said govt healthcare is better than the private healthcare that the rest of us get, the US has "govt healthcare or better" and more stuff. By cohort, our poor people have govt healthcare and more stuff than yours and our richer people have better than govt healthcare and even more stuff.

Which gets us to the question of how our govt and private healthcare compares to yours, because the "more stuff" conclusion seems pretty solid.

> Retail spending however will not as you don't buy healthcare as a retail good.

What is the basis for your claim that healthcare can not be a retail good? You may not think of healthcare as being available as a retail good, but I see it in stores and the like. I happen to received an advertisement for a "get an MRI to see anything interesting is happening inside you" service in the mail today, and that sort of thing is reasonably common.

Surely you're not going to argue "necessity", as food, clothing, and shelter are both necessities and retail goods.

> if you get continuous preventive medicine you won't get as much cancer

Oh really? We just started to see vaccines for a common form of cervical cancer, and that was a first. How about some supporting evidence. Be precise - what types of cancer and what kind of healthcare. (Note - precancerous growths are not really pre-cancerous - they're early stage, as evidenced by the fact that the success in treating them is evaluated the same way that we evaluate other cancer treatments.)

> The other flaw in the whole "cancer survival is higher so healthcare must be better" argument is that although cancer is a very important illness it is far from the only important one and not even the major cause of death.

I didn't say that cancer survival rates were a decisive argument. I said that they were more relevant to the healthcare quality argument. I'd be happy to see more and better data, but see no reason to assume anything about that data before it shows up.

Re: We're Rich, You're Not. End of Story.

#118

Post by gjm11 »

ajuc wrote: post #106
gjm11 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in the UK. When I get an appointment at my doctor's surgery, I see a doctor, not a nurse. (Unless it's for something that's done by nurses because their skills are more relevant than a doctor's, such as ear syringing.) I've only once been to the doctor and gone away thinking I'd been deprived of treatment or tests that I needed; on that occasion, there didn't turn out to be anything wrong with me, so I'm not g…

About flu - when you have really serious consequences after a flu it's because some bacteria get a "free ride" on your immunity system compromised by a virus, so antibiotics are sometimes good thing to take when having a flu. Still - I agree, doctors are prescribing them too often. Anyway - Polish emigrants (immigrants from you POV:)) are commonly returning to Poland to go to doctor, and that means it's in some ways…

I'm not a doctor, so take this with a grain of salt, but it seems to me that it's a Really Bad Idea to take antibiotics when you don't know that you have a bacterial infection and roughly what it is. Sure, it might happen to help if you happen to have just got infected, or to be about to get infected, with bacteria. But it also might happen to be harmful, e.g. if you get infected by something when you're near the end of the course of antibiotics -- seems like a great way to breed antibiotic-resistant bacteria inside your body.

Contrary to what your article says, the British system does not take you straight from "see your GP" to "be hospitalized" with nothing in between. If you have, or might have, something wrong with you that requires specialist treatment, your GP will refer you to a specialist. (Who will typically work at a hospital, so you'll see them there, but why does that matter?)

If Polish GP-equivalents are typically able to see you the same day as you call them up, that's certainly better than in the UK. (Though if you have something that seems like it may need urgent attention, you will likely get a same-day appointment from your GP in the UK too. For instance, I think every time we've taken our 3-year-old to the doctor we've had an appointment the same day as we called.)

I am not trying to argue that the system in the UK is perfect or close to it. But some of these specific criticisms don't match up with my own experience.

Re: We're Rich, You're Not. End of Story.

#119

Post by Adam503 »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #83
Adam503 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author of that so-called "cancer survival rates" BS is Betsy McCaughey, the woman who invented the "death panels" nonsense. Here's link to webpage with video of John Stewart unloading on Betsy McCaughey for 2 entire segments of the Daily Show because of the "death panels" http://www.mediaite.com/tv/finally-jon-stewart-gives-betsy-m...

OK, we heard you already - you don't need to spam the comments with the same thing quite so many times. I'm in the UK and this is the first I heard about "death panels". I looked at the top listing in the NYT and on ABC, as returned by Google, in order to get a definition. Surely any country with limited healthcare resources requires someone (maybe a panel) to decide where to restrict application of resources. In man…

If you are so out of the loop of American politics that you were not aware about the whole "death panels" uproar, you really aren't aren't in the loop enough to be discussing the rest of this subject matter on this thread either

"Palin: Obama's "Death Panel" Could Kill My Down Syndrome Baby

In a new posting on her Facebook account, former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) made a dire statement about health care reform -- that it could result in an Obama-created "death panel" killing her infant son with Down Syndrome:

    The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil...."
http://tinyurl.com/lujt9h

pbhjpbhj, the UK most certainly DOES NOT have what Betsy McCaughey and Sarah Palin defined as a "death panel"

Post reply on HN