Sweden and Social Democracy

[Aseahawkfan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4opFbB6okwo

What do you think of some of these ideas? Sweden seems like a good model to pursue.

[RiverDog]

Apples and oranges. There are two key differences that wasn't addressed in the video:

Sweden's population is 10 million, or about the size of Georgia. The United States population is north of 330 million. Sweden spends 1.5% of GDP on defense, the United States 4.6%. The European Union only spends an average of 1.2% GDP on defense.

The United States does not have a good model to follow that is proven will work in this country. No other democratic nation on the planet has the combination of population and a commitment to defense that the United States has. If you're comfortable ceding military power to China and/or Russia, then you could justify experimenting with a conversion to "social capitalism".

But not today. At this point, I can't see us doing anything progressive with the way the economy is heading. We both agree that the economy is going to take several years to return to what it was 4 months ago. All of these social programs are going to cost massive amounts of money, in the trillions of dollars, money that just doesn't exist. You've said it yourself, we can't just keep printing money. We just got through sending $1200 to every adult in the country and 40 million unemployed, so now we're going to turn around and raise taxes? IMO that would push us into a 2nd Great Depression.

[NorthHawk]

It's about quality of life and choices for a country.
Do you want to be able to live freely without worry that a health problem can bankrupt you or do you want to
live freely knowing that your family will be OK if that health problem occurs? As well, it frees up business from
having to pay health insurance premiums when competing for high quality workers or in union negotiations.
It is interesting to hear they have so many billionaires per capita and the point that there so many entrepreneurs
as well because of the lesser chance of losing it all.
But the population of a country has to be willing to pay higher taxes for a better life. That's the trade-off and the
military funding could be accommodated by the increased marginal tax rates.

[Aseahawkfan]

I do wonder how many of their billionaires made their money selling to America. So many nation's wealth is derived from selling to other nations. America doesn't have the luxury of some other super large nation we can use to derive huge income from other than China and India. It makes it hard to use the Scandinavian model which seems to rely on being a small nation able to derive huge gains from free trade.

[RiverDog]

Do you want to be able to live freely without worry that a health problem can bankrupt you or do you want to
live freely knowing that your family will be OK if that health problem occurs?

I'm perfectly happy with my health insurance situation. There is virtually no chance that a health problem to me or my wife would bankrupt us.

As well, it frees up business from having to pay health insurance premiums when competing for high quality workers or in union negotiations.

Not really. Any socialized medicine program will rely heavily on increased taxes on businesses and corporations, most likely on a per employee basis. In addition, there are a lot of people like me that are beneficiaries of a retiree medical program from their former employer that would surely go away under any socialized health plan.

No one has answered my question as to what's going to happen to the balance of power if we were to cut our defense budget to a level of less than 2% GDP like Canada, western Europe, Japan, etc. Do you guys really place that much trust in China and Russia?

[Aseahawkfan]

Not really. Any socialized medicine program will rely heavily on increased taxes on businesses and corporations, most likely on a per employee basis. In addition, there are a lot of people like me that are beneficiaries of a retiree medical program from their former employer that would surely go away under any socialized health plan.

No one has answered my question as to what's going to happen to the balance of power if we were to cut our defense budget to a level of less than 2% GDP like Canada, western Europe, Japan, etc. Do you guys really place that much trust in China and Russia?

No. Military competition has always been the great problem of the world. Places like Canada and Sweden can cut their military budges with the United States around and just accept they have very little chance of military resolution to problems or even self-defense if a larger country comes after them. If America were a crueler country, we could take Canada in a short war and control it easily. If we didn't police the world, nations like China and Russia would move unchecked by other nations. China and Russia fear no one but us and we no one but them. That is the great conundrum. Who defends the idea of Democracy throughout the world if no other large nations care about Democracy or freedom?

[RiverDog]

No one has answered my question as to what's going to happen to the balance of power if we were to cut our defense budget to a level of less than 2% GDP like Canada, western Europe, Japan, etc. Do you guys really place that much trust in China and Russia?

No. Military competition has always been the great problem of the world. Places like Canada and Sweden can cut their military budges with the United States around and just accept they have very little chance of military resolution to problems or even self-defense if a larger country comes after them. If America were a crueler country, we could take Canada in a short war and control it easily. If we didn't police the world, nations like China and Russia would move unchecked by other nations. China and Russia fear no one but us and we no one but them. That is the great conundrum. Who defends the idea of Democracy throughout the world if no other large nations care about Democracy or freedom?

Ideally we could rely on an organization like the United Nations or NATO. But history has shown that the UN is nothing more than a glorified debating society and managing an army with hundreds of participating countries wouldn't be viable.

So with that, out goes all the comparisons of medical systems in the rest of the western world. They simply aren't viable for a nation like ours. The individual is not going to be able to depend on the government to take care of them, they are going to have to take care of themselves. What a novel concept!

[Aseahawkfan]

Ideally we could rely on an organization like the United Nations or NATO. But history has shown that the UN is nothing more than a glorified debating society and managing an army with hundreds of participating countries wouldn't be viable.

So with that, out goes all the comparisons of medical systems in the rest of the western world. They simply aren't viable for a nation like ours. The individual is not going to be able to depend on the government to take care of them, they are going to have to take care of themselves. What a novel concept!

I don't believe this. These other nations are still paying less per capita for equivalent medical care to us. You just happen to be in a very good position for medical care by virtue of having a good employer, but that in no way means most employers are like your company. I understand you have a personal stake in maintaining the status quo, but the status quo is not doing a good job for the money we're paying for it as a whole. I think it would better support our capitalism infrastructure to as burrton put it a while back: decouple insurance from employment. Tying health insurance to employment is too much of a leash or carrot for employers to hold over the head of employees.

Rather we will have to think differently about how we accomplish similar goals. We can look at some other quality models of healthcare around the world to see what might work well for us.

[I-5]

Riv, do you think that because of our role as superpower against China/Russia (which I agree with), the current health system we have is the most efficient use of resources, and not worth upsetting? I'm not talking about your particular plan but about overall. At about $10.5k per person annually, healhcare cost in the US is almost double the cost per capita to the next most expensive country, Germany. That has nothing to do with military spending, but about inefficiency. Since socialized medicine is such a dirty word to most (not all) american ears, can the US at least do it better?

[RiverDog]

Riv, do you think that because of our role as superpower against China/Russia (which I agree with), the current health system we have is the most efficient use of resources, and not worth upsetting? I'm not talking about your particular plan but about overall. At about $10.5k per person annually, healhcare cost in the US is almost double the cost per capita to the next most expensive country, Germany. That has nothing to do with military spending, but about inefficiency. Since socialized medicine is such a dirty word to most (not all) american ears, can the US at least do it better?

The short answer is no. I don't like the idea of the government taking over 20% of the US economy. Healthy, non monopolistic competition is good for health care both in terms of price and quality. But that doesn't mean that I'm not open to some type of regulatory function, above and beyond what is in place today, to help control prices, in particular, drug prices, and some type of enhancement of Medicaid or financial supplement of private plans to make them more affordable.

[Aseahawkfan]

Competition is good for health care both in terms of price and quality. But that doesn't mean that I'm not open to some type of regulatory function, above and beyond what is in place today, to help control prices, in particular, drug prices, and some type of enhancement of Medicaid or financial supplement of private plans to make them more affordable.

Prove to me there is real competition in the health insurance market. I want to see it. Because I don't see competition. Break down the competitive market for health insurance. Show me how I can make a health insurance company or a medical provider improve their prices through my consumer choice like is normal in a competitive market environment. I want to see your examples.

Because I don't believe health insurance is competitive in the way capitalism intends it to be. I believe it is vastly over-priced and purposely so to ensure the working man doesn't have access to affordable insurance save through an employer.

[RiverDog]

Competition is good for health care both in terms of price and quality. But that doesn't mean that I'm not open to some type of regulatory function, above and beyond what is in place today, to help control prices, in particular, drug prices, and some type of enhancement of Medicaid or financial supplement of private plans to make them more affordable.

Prove to me there is real competition in the health insurance market. I want to see it. Because I don't see competition. Break down the competitive market for health insurance. Show me how I can make a health insurance company or a medical provider improve their prices through my consumer choice like is normal in a competitive market environment. I want to see your examples.

Because I don't believe health insurance is competitive in the way capitalism intends it to be. I believe it is vastly over-priced and purposely so to ensure the working man doesn't have access to affordable insurance save through an employer.

First off, I cannot "prove" that it is competitive anymore than you can "prove" that it is not. One thing I can tell you is that my experience of having to buy insurance on my own when I retired at age 62 is extremely expensive relative to the premiums I paid as part of the group insurance provided by my employer by at least a factor of 5. One possible interpretation of that fact is that group insurance is a heck of a buy, at least for a 62 year old.

Secondly, I did not say that health insurance is competitive. What I said was that healthy competition is good for health care.

Keep in mind that the cost of your insurance premiums is only one component in the equation. The other component is the quality of health care, which is a little more difficult to quantify. Personally, I am and have been generally satisfied with the quality of health care both me and my wife has had relative to what we have had to pay. I have no desire to change to an unproven, experimental system.

[Aseahawkfan]

First off, I cannot "prove" that it is competitive anymore than you can "prove" that it is not. One thing I can tell you is that my experience of having to buy insurance on my own when I retired at age 62 is extremely expensive relative to the premiums I paid as part of the group insurance provided by my employer by at least a factor of 5. One possible interpretation of that fact is that group insurance is a heck of a buy, at least for a 62 year old.

Secondly, I did not say that health insurance is competitive. What I said was that healthy competition is good for health care.

Keep in mind that the cost of your insurance premiums is only one component in the equation. The other component is the quality of health care, which is a little more difficult to quantify. Personally, I am and have been generally satisfied with the quality of health care both me and my wife has had relative to what we have had to pay. I have no desire to change to an unproven, experimental system.

I can prove that health insurance is not competitive or I would not be supporting socialized medicine. Health insurance is not a competitive industry any longer. Does not respond to the normal capitalist means to encourage competition. Is not chosen by the consumer, but chosen by the employer for his employees often with a bias towards cost cutting. This is all a provable part of the current system that some people don't want to investigate or admit.

Even when you sent me a list of ten insurance companies, I showed you how behind all ten of those companies was 3 larger insurance companies. The smaller companies were just re-insurers or administrators of the larger insurance company.

I'm very ready to debate that health insurance does not respond to normal supply-demand economics.