Economics

Historical National Health Expenditure Data

Historical National Health Expenditure Data.

What I was actually trying to put together was a comparison of the US Health Care Costs with the payroll income.  My idea is that we have $2.5T annual health care and $6.5T payroll – Health Care is 38%of payroll.

Of that $2.5T I don’t know how much is for basic health care, as opposed to advanced or elective health care. We set up a Medicare or National Health Service that covers all Americans with basic health care.  Put in a payroll tax of 20% that covers Health Care and SSA. With employers matching the payroll tax, and the taxes being dedicated to health and SSA and off the federal books, we should be able to manage the costs without involving the federal budget.  The States get out of the Medicaid business and folks can move from state to state without worrying about their coverage.

Of course the big problem is to determine what is ‘basic’ health care. Are heart transplants basic or advanced? Let a panel of medical professionals and former health insurance executives determine what we will cover with our system and go from there. The insurance companies can stay around to cover the advanced and elective medical needs.

PS – Since a 20% payroll tax will put a big drag on a lot of take-home pay packets, I would  suggest that personal income taxes only be applied on income above the median household income, ~$50K . And then only gradually progressive.

 

Economics

Wage and salary disbursements

Wage and salary disbursements A576RC1 – FRED – St. Louis Fed.

Took me a while to find this. I was trying to find the total annual US payroll. I found it rather quickly a few years ago but now the payroll services are obfuscating the  search engines. Plus it appears that I was looking for payroll and should have been looking for disbursements.

But there it is, $6.54T a year.

In the course of my googlings I came across the Personal consumption expenditures for the US and they run $10.37T. Interesting discrepancy between wages and salary and spending.

 

Economics, Politics

Health Care Rationing

The “Rationing” Switcheroo – NYTimes.com.

I agree with Paul here. If the Medicare system determines what it will or will not pay for – the basic medical care coverage – there should be nothing to preclude a patient from using their own money to get advanced or alternative medical care.

The Declaration of Independence did not declare that we have the right to life, liberty, and the all expenses paid pursuit of happiness.

 

 

Economics, Politics, Preparing for the worst

A discussion

I saw an interesting interview with Senator Rand Paul by Jon Stewart last night, three parts. They were actually exchanging coherent ideas.

You don’t have the right to pollute your neighbor’s air, and the air is much cleaner than it was 30 years ago. (Only some of it is the Clean Air Act?) Things are a balancing act.

There is a difference between stupidity and over-regulation.  Government has a role in regulation. Congress has a role in stupidity.

Corporations aren’t going to keep themselves clean; we the people need to have some oversight. That’s what Congress is for.

Do we work to monitor the stupidity in regulation or do we get rid of regulation altogether?

Rather than taking a sledgehammer to the government, let’s debate the extent that regulations should have. Let Congress do its job and rein in the Faceless Bureaucrats as needed. But it seems that congress doesn’t want to get involved with the details and they pass laws with vague wording that requires substantial interpretation. And if the interpretation is not politically correct, the politician has a fall back position.

I  thought Paul’s example of Hazmat teams needed to clean up milk spills was a bit of hyperbole, especially since he tied it to Oil Spill clean up. Did a civil servant really tie the animal fat oil in milk to petroleum? Or is someone out there making fun of the faceless bureaucracy? Or is our milk supply really hazardous?  (Where are those milk inspectors when you need them?)

General, Politics

What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?

Philip E. Agre

via What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?.

via Sidelights

Q: What is conservatism? A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Q: What is wrong with conservatism? A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

And it really annoys me that so many Americans seem to want to elevate the President to a King.

Economics, Politics

US corporate profit performance

I was just thinking about Corporate Taxes, don’t ask me why.

US corporate profit performance.

I’ve heard that the USA has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, 35%. So I am looking at these 2008 figures and see that Corporate profits are $1,360.4 Billion and they paid $292.2 Billion. That works out to 21.5%, not 35%.  I see from the 2008 federal budget that Corporate tax revenues come to $314.9 Billion. I don’t know why these numbers don’t agree, maybe different fiscal calendars, but the latter is still only 23%, not 35%.

If we really had a 35% tax rate we would be collecting $476 Billion instead of the paltry sum we are currently collecting. That would help pay for a few more months in Afghanistan.

I see that the US  corporate tax rate is listed as between 0% and 35%, so we don’t actually have a flat one-rate-for-all-corporations tax.  I guess the fun is in starting with 35% and seeing how quickly you can get it to 0%. Why don’t they make a flat 25% tax with no deductions and stop playing games? I would like for them to revise the corporate tax code such that any compensation paid to an executive in excess of the US presidents salary would be counted toward corporate profits and not an operating expense.

 

History, Politics

Presidents

Just thinking about the ‘greatness’ of the American Presidents and how they might be ranked.  Here is my top few, based on nothing but my impressions of which one’s are responsible for the positive view of our country today. They enhanced the original vision and made it better. A few went in the opposite direction. Most were just Chief Executives and did what they were supposed to do.

Best:

  1. Washington
  2. Lincoln
  3. FD Roosevelt
  4. Jefferson
  5. T Roosevelt

Worst

  1. GW Bush
  2. Reagan
  3. John Adams
  4. Nixon
  5. Wilson

I am still undecided about Jackson. He either goes on the first list or the second. Leaning towards the first, but he really promoted an imperialistic America. I have the same problem with Teddy.

Why is Washington number 1? Because he walked away from it all after eight years. He limited the office of the President and became the role model for future generations.

Economics, Politics

I think I see a problem

Blog – House GOP Spending Cuts.

Our government is broke and House Republicans are working to rein in wasteful government spending. Below is an initial list of 148 programs that will be terminated saving our country $100 billion.

Republican Congressional Committed is posting a list of 148 programs that will save us $100 Billion. I am not particularly  familiar with any of these programs – I think I have heard of a couple –  but I did notice if 148 programs were going to save us $100B they  would need to average about $675Million per program. I didn’t see that sort of average in a quick scan of the list, so I actually added up the savings of the 148 programs and came up with $14.3B.- average of $97M each. Now if these congress critters can’t even sum up their selected list of savings, what can we expect when they go after the big numbers?  More lies and obfuscation? (They’re politicians, it’s a rhetorical question)

$14.3B isn’t even a spit in the wind of a $3.7T budget, $100B barely is.  Come on guys, go where the money is – DoD.

The Thoughts and Luminations of Jack Heneghan