Guess what Greece had to give up to get bailed out?

elprincipe

elprincipe

CAGiversary!
Feedback
60 (100%)
You guessed it: their public health-care system. It was seen as bankrupting the country and unsustainable...sound familiar?

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/05/14/guess_what_greece_has_to_jettison__98467.html

It should be no surprise that in Greece, health care spending as a percentage of the economy is relatively steep. According to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development data, it's higher than that in the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom and Japan. Despite all the spending, Greece could never cover 100% of its citizens, reaching only about 83% for primary care.

Today, the patient most in need of a room in the intensive-care ward is Greece itself - what with government debt nearing 120% of GDP and the deficit at 13% of GDP.
Click to expand...
 
Our public health care system will work! I mean, our congressmen and women worked really, really hard on it. They had to squeeze the fairies by hand to get the fairy dust! And those things bite! You ever been bitten' by a fairy? It hurts. Bad. Then, you find out your insurance doesn't cover fairy bites and you're screwed.
 
But Greece just did it wrong, they don't count.

Scratch that, it was American free market policies that drove them into this, I forgot that was what we were blaming it on.
 
Considering Italy's government is really corrupt, is this really a surprise? Italy is around the same ballpark in spending as all the countries and the article is trying way too hard to bend the way one looks at the problem in Italy. The article is almost complete trash and has no merit.
 
The thing that bankrupted, and will continue to bankrupt Greece, is the massive amount of corruption that the country has. Hell their health care system is the most corrupt public works system in the country. The corruption is unsustainable, not public health care. This article is mostly trash.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']The thing that bankrupted, and will continue to bankrupt Greece, is the massive amount of corruption that the country has. Hell their health care system is the most corrupt public works system in the country. The corruption is unsustainable, not public health care. This article is mostly trash.[/QUOTE]

Before completely trashing the standpoint, let's try to find similarities.

I'm rounding up for sake of convenience in some places.

Percentage of debt compared to GDP in USA: $13trillion / $14.25 trillion = 91.2%

http://flagcounter.com/factbook/us
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Percentage of deficit compared to GDP in USA: $1.18 trillion / $14.25 trillion = 8.3%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

Amount of bribes in Greece: 1355 euros per year per family
http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-e...e-greek-pays-1355-euros-in-bribes-a-year.html

Amount of bribes in America: 200-1200 million per election cycle????

http://www.redstate.com/jrichardson/2010/04/16/dnc-to-spend-50-million-on-midterms/

Assuming quadruple since the RNC will spend money and "administrative costs" for both, too.

I couldn't find anything definitive.

Reason Greece damn bankrupted itself: Welfare State. Yay! The Right gets a cookie.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/233880

But...

Reason USA is damn near bankrupting itself: Wars. Oh, I guess we all forgot.

Do you really need another link showing how much money the USA is dumping into elective wars?

...

I remembered something Dave Ramsey said on the radio years ago. "Don't try to get out of debt when you have an addiction." For example, don't try to get out of debt when you have a gambling problem or use drugs. Does Greece have a debt problem because they pissed away so much on health care or because they're corrupt? Of course, is Greek leadership more or less corrupt than American leadership?
 
Okay.....

One. Consider this proof that rightwingers aren't motivated by anything but spite, they get their two inch boners over anything that sticks their thumbs in the eyes of liberals.

Two. Consider the source, a free market spank mag and a dude with an obvious axe to grind who is a half step from lying by failing to point out as much Greece spends on healthcare it is still much less than we spend.

Three. It is only "considering" the move and fails to point out facts like the US isn't Greece.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
UncleBob you should know better. You call it 'our public health care system', I assume you're referring to the HC bill that was just passed.

It was a private health insurance bailout. Nothing more.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']The thing that bankrupted, and will continue to bankrupt Greece, is the massive amount of corruption that the country has. Hell their health care system is the most corrupt public works system in the country. The corruption is unsustainable, not public health care. This article is mostly trash.[/QUOTE]

Yeah! Stupid corrupt Greeks. We don't have to worry about any corruption in our honorable US government.

[quote name='IRHari']UncleBob you should know better. You call it 'our public health care system', I assume you're referring to the HC bill that was just passed.

It was a private health insurance bailout. Nothing more.[/QUOTE]

I'll give you that (Go health care reform bill - yay!)... for now. However, if some on the left had their way...
 
So are you suggesting that because they're getting rid of healthcare, that it was the source of the problem? They're also lowering pay wages and raising the retirement age. Care to extrapolate that to the U.S. as well? And I guess we should ignore market forces and the addition of unstable countries to the European Union and the Euro?
 
When every single country with state run health care goes bankrupt, let us know.Not that even that would be relevant, we aren't Greece, we aren't Canada, we aren't Britain. Just because some countries may have trouble with their state run health care programs, it doesn't mean we have to also. Hell if anything we can learn from their mistakes.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']When every single country with state run health care goes bankrupt, let us know.Not that even that would be relevant, we aren't Greece, we aren't Canada, we aren't Britain. Just because some countries may have trouble with their state run health care programs, it doesn't mean we have to also. Hell if anything we can learn from their mistakes.[/QUOTE]

You're accepting the underlying premise that health care bankrupted the country. That would be a mistake.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']You're accepting the underlying premise that health care bankrupted the country. That would be a mistake.[/QUOTE]
If you're going to argue with them i find it's best to just accept their "argument" and fight from there. Make their argument irrelevant rather than trying to disprove it. If it's irrelevant that Greece's health care system cost a lot and contributed to their debt, then the original argument no longer matters.

Like i said, whether or not their health care system hurt them financially is irrelevant to us, we're not Greece.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']If you're going to argue with them i find it's best to just accept their "argument" and fight from there. Make their argument irrelevant rather than trying to disprove it. If it's irrelevant that Greece's health care system cost a lot and contributed to their debt, then the original argument no longer matters.

Like i said, whether or not their health care system hurt them financially is irrelevant to us, we're not Greece.[/QUOTE]

I'll disprove it.

http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1...ALTH-CARE-SPENDING-RESOURCES-UTILIZATION.html

Let's say Greece spends 10% of its GDP on health care.

http://www.in2greece.com/english/factstrivia/facts/facts.htm

Greece's external debt level in 2007 was $301.9 billion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Greece

In June 2009, the external debt level was $552.8 billion.

Greece's GDP is $343 billion.

552.8-301.9 is 250.9.

To be as fair as possible, let's pretend Greece's debt level increased $250 billion over the course of three years instead of two. Now, Greece is only spending $35 billion per year on health care. 250-105 is 145. So, what is the cause of the other $145 billion in debt?
 
I'm sure Greece's economic troubles will evaporate now that they're giving up state run healthcare.

What do you say gentlemen - how about we come back in a year and check on that.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Reason USA is damn near bankrupting itself: Wars. Oh, I guess we all forgot.[/QUOTE]

Nobody forgot. Obviously we spent a ton on wars in the last 9 years, no question about it. However, let's have some perspective. The "stimulus" bill cost more than the entire Iraq war. Then let's take TARP, huge omnibus budget increases, the health-care bill, various "jobs" bills, and coming full circle we can go back to the first "stimulus" under Bush (which also didn't work in the slightest). So while wars have been a large expenditure, and just general defense spending as well, these are the things that are leading us to have $1.5 trillion deficits instead of "only" $500 billion.

By the way, CBO says, oops, they miscalculated, the health-care bill will cost another $115 billion.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...dy-costs-more-than-we-thought-it-would/56752/

Oh yeah, and you remember, in addition to the bullshit "reduce the deficit" promise, it was promised that the bill reduced health-care premiums? Remember when the knowledgeable among us called bullshit on these things? Oh yes, premiums are (of course) going up.

http://www.buffalonews.com/2010/04/26/1031908/health-costs-to-rise.html

Only $511 billion additional, no big deal, right?

EDIT: sorry, forgot to include this gem too, emergency rooms will be overwhelmed (they already are overcrowded) due to the new law:

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobby...-to-overwhelm-already-crammed-emergency-rooms

So much for bringing costs down by reducing emergency room visits. Just check one more bullshit promise off on the "thoroughly debunked" list.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='IRHari']I guess correlation implies causation. I'll let the guy who makes a list of logical fallacies know about that one.[/QUOTE]

Dude, when it starts off ignoring the fact that Greece spends less on healthcare than we do, we don't even have to get to the list of fallacies.
 
I love this part haha,
"Meanwhile, the CBO just came out and said that the health care reform was slated to cost $115 billion more than they said it would. Why? Because they didn't have time to calculate the effects on discretionary spending such as new administrative capacity, demonstration projects, and continuation of successful short-term initiatives."


why should we take our time with a trillion dollar legislation?! people are dying in the streets! Who cares what the numbers are, its simple, people need healthcare we will give it to them!
 
Libs like Msut77 said it would health care would save money during the health care debate (And don't bullshit, I can easily look up your posting history and prove it), then skirted past the issue when it was proven untrue, why would people like this ever say anything wrong about their masters?

Conservatives are irredemable, people, no matter who tells you to pay for what...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd-iM9Wmdgo&feature=player_embedded
 
[quote name='AdultLink']Libs like Msut77 said it would health care would save money during the health care debate (And don't bullshit, I can easily look up your posting history and prove it), then skirted past the issue when it was proven untrue, why would people like this ever say anything wrong about their masters?

Conservatives are irredemable, people, no matter who tells you to pay for what...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd-iM9Wmdgo&feature=player_embedded[/QUOTE]

wow that is interesting and what I have been talking about for awhile now. The government is making it more ideal to not work than to work.

Also just wait for it, wait for it, the libs in the forum are going to minimize the extra cost by saying that it isnt that much more money.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='elprincipe']Nobody forgot. Obviously we spent a ton on wars in the last 9 years, no question about it. However, let's have some perspective. The "stimulus" bill cost more than the entire Iraq war. Then let's take TARP, huge omnibus budget increases, the health-care bill, various "jobs" bills, and coming full circle we can go back to the first "stimulus" under Bush (which also didn't work in the slightest). So while wars have been a large expenditure, and just general defense spending as well, these are the things that are leading us to have $1.5 trillion deficits instead of "only" $500 billion.

By the way, CBO says, oops, they miscalculated, the health-care bill will cost another $115 billion.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...dy-costs-more-than-we-thought-it-would/56752/

Oh yeah, and you remember, in addition to the bullshit "reduce the deficit" promise, it was promised that the bill reduced health-care premiums? Remember when the knowledgeable among us called bullshit on these things? Oh yes, premiums are (of course) going up.

http://www.buffalonews.com/2010/04/26/1031908/health-costs-to-rise.html

Only $511 billion additional, no big deal, right?

EDIT: sorry, forgot to include this gem too, emergency rooms will be overwhelmed (they already are overcrowded) due to the new law:

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobby...-to-overwhelm-already-crammed-emergency-rooms

So much for bringing costs down by reducing emergency room visits. Just check one more bullshit promise off on the "thoroughly debunked" list.[/QUOTE]

How does this prove Greece bankrupted itself through public health care?

EDIT: Let's go over the articles just to be nice.

1. Companies dumping their employees' health care will backfire. It will either piss off your workers or it will fasttrack the country to a single payer system.

2. We've been over this in the Obama care thread. Costs going up 1 percent under Obamacare instead of 7 percent before Obamacare is a positive.

3. Triage anybody? Even if there is a million people in the ER, only the sickest get treated first. Do you know what happens? People who aren't very sick leave. When my daughter had an ear infection at 2AM and we hadn't received even one visit from a doctor by 5AM, we left and went to the urgent care facility when it opened at 10AM. Also, this is an opportunity to broaden initial patient review. If somebody shows up mid week with a sniffle, defer the person to an urgent care facility or recommend a GP.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']How does this prove Greece bankrupted itself through public health care?

EDIT: Let's go over the articles just to be nice.

1. Companies dumping their employees' health care will backfire. It will either piss off your workers or it will fasttrack the country to a single payer system.

2. We've been over this in the Obama care thread. Costs going up 1 percent under Obamacare instead of 7 percent before Obamacare is a positive.

3. Triage anybody? Even if there is a million people in the ER, only the sickest get treated first. Do you know what happens? People who aren't very sick leave. When my daughter had an ear infection at 2AM and we hadn't received even one visit from a doctor by 5AM, we left and went to the urgent care facility when it opened at 10AM. Also, this is an opportunity to broaden initial patient review. If somebody shows up mid week with a sniffle, defer the person to an urgent care facility or recommend a GP.[/QUOTE]

The 1% is a best case scenario by the Obama administration. How much do you want to bet it goes higher? Nevermind ;) we will just wait and see again.

I also find it funny now when ERs are full its because people dont have that serious of an injury. Before health care was passed people were screaming "people are dieing waiting to be called!" Gotta love it.
 
[quote name='Knoell']The 1% is a best case scenario by the Obama administration. How much do you want to bet it goes higher? Nevermind ;) we will just wait and see again.

I also find it funny now when ERs are full its because people dont have that serious of an injury. Before health care was passed people were screaming "people are dieing waiting to be called!" Gotta love it.[/QUOTE]

Tough call. We know private insurance isn't going to control costs on its own.

Will Obamacare make things worse? If the reaction to Obamacare is for every business to drop health care benefits for its employees, it could drive up individual costs since "group" discounts will be gone and some people will try to skate by uninsured until an emergency happens. Of course, employers will be sitting on a big pile of money while their workers struggle to exist. What do you think the general reaction will be?

All sorts of people with various injuries go to the ER and you should know that. People have died and will continue to die in emergency rooms waiting for service. If an ER is mismanaged, people will die regardless of Obamacare or not.

Let's try it another way. The amount of people going to the ER because of GSWs, heart attacks and car accidents will be the same regardless of Obamacare or not. Your ERs could be packed, but they'll have the same number of major issues and a higher number of minor issues. A smart hospital would set up urgent care centers nearby. Then, any congestion of ERs will be reduced.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I also find it funny now when ERs are full its because people dont have that serious of an injury. Before health care was passed people were screaming "people are dieing waiting to be called!" Gotta love it.[/QUOTE]

What? People have always said ERs are full because of people who don't have serious injuries and they go there because they don't have insurance. The problem is that that's not what the ER is for, it's not free (the cost is socialized of course), and it isn't an actual solution for people who aren't insured.

I think the "dying waiting in line" thing is generally what people who are against national healthcare plans say (like in Canada where everybody dies in line or something).
 
[quote name='Knoell']The 1% is a best case scenario by the Obama administration.[/quote]

At this point you are just basically lying.

As for what Linkypoo said, that dribbling nonce can feel free to go through my post history.

He can read about all the times I talked about how hobbled health care reform was and how other countries do it right.

But none of you are grown ups and couldn't construct an argument if your lives depended on it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']At this point you are just basically lying.[/QUOTE]

To be fair, a growth rate in health care costs less than the rate of inflation is a substantial improvement over the current system.
 
CNSNews? That's the most credible place you could find a media clip from? For those of you that don't know, Media Research Center is the parent of CNS.

No bias there, no sir.
 
[quote name='Strell']If A = B
And C = B
Then A = C

Is the logic going on in this thread.

Here's a hint:
it's a fallacy.
[/QUOTE]

There's no need to start in this direction. Before long, somebody will start complaining about personal attacks.

Let's start simple. Greece's debt increased $250 billion in a period where it spent $70-$105 billion on health care.

Ergo, Greece's health care system isn't the entire cause of the problem even if it contributed to it.
 
[quote name='Msut77']At this point you are just basically lying.

As for what Linkypoo said, that dribbling nonce can feel free to go through my post history.

He can read about all the times I talked about how hobbled health care reform was and how other countries do it right.

But none of you are grown ups and couldn't construct an argument if your lives depended on it.[/QUOTE]

Why don't we try being honest with each other for once? NOBODY who comes in this forum comes in to be adult and construct valid arguments. People come to attack the opposing party.

That includes you.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']Why don't we try being honest with each other for once?[/quote]

I may have many problems, but a lack of honesty ain't one.

NOBODY who comes in this forum comes in to be adult and construct valid arguments. People come to attack the opposing party.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself.

That includes you.
Click to expand...

fuck off.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']Why don't we try being honest with each other for once? NOBODY who comes in this forum comes in to be adult and construct valid arguments. People come to attack the opposing party.

That includes you.[/QUOTE]

Don't confuse this board for the constructive conversation board, because that'll never happen in here.
 
[quote name='Knoell']$115 billion more than they said it would. Why? Because they didn't have time to calculate the effects on discretionary spending such as new administrative capacity, demonstration projects, and continuation of successful short-term initiatives."[/QUOTE]
OMFG THAT'S HUGE WE'RE ALL DOOMED. LET'S ASK THE CBO ITSELF WHAT THE NUMBERS REALLY MEAN.
The potential discretionary costs identified two days ago include many items whose funding would be a continuation of recent funding levels for health-related programs or that were previously authorized and that PPACA would authorize for future years. (For example, those potential costs include $39 billion authorized for Indian health services that already receive appropriations every year.) CBO estimates that the amounts authorized for those items exceed $86 billion over the 10-year period (out of the roughly $105 billion total shown in the table provided yesterday). Thus, CBO’s discretionary baseline, which assumes that 2010 appropriations are extended with adjustments for anticipated inflation, already accounts for much of the potential discretionary spending under PPACA. That is one of the reasons that potential discretionary effects are shown separately from effects on revenues and mandatory spending in CBO’s cost estimates.
Click to expand...
Smart to not smart translation:
So that knocks out more than $86 billion of the $115 billion. What's leftover is about $15 billion for administration and $10 billion in possible new discretionary spending. That spending may or may not happen, and if it does, it will need another vote in Congress, and it will have to be offset elsewhere in the budget.
Click to expand...
IF the added $25 billion is going to be spent, it must be appropriated in the future AND must be offset via cuts somewhere else in the budget to make it neutral.

You may continue hyperventilating now.
[quote name='Msut77']At this point you are just basically lying.[/quote]
Lying implies understanding.

Someone needs to tell Canada they're doomed. Oh wait, the Economist just did a piece on how they are by orders of magnitude the best positioned western economy in the world. Obviously that's impossible because of teh healf cair. If only someone were to look at the best performing and worst performing economies and compare those, *MY GOD*, I bet there'd be qualitative differences!
 
Doens't change the fact that countries like Taiwan, France etc. run national health care without going bankrupt.

It just has to be ran properly--i..e make sure premiums/taxes are high enough to keep it in the black and build up a rainy day fund.

As well as having proper finanical system regulations in place to prevent these kind of economic collapses we had in 2008 to the greatest extent possible so you don't have the economy melt down and threaten the health care system etc. as money has to go to fixing the economy. As well as drastic cut backs in our defense spending etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It just has to be ran properly--i..e make sure premiums/taxes are high enough to keep it in the black and build up a rainy day fund.[/QUOTE]

I would argue against a rainy day fund or being in the black. There is no need to satisfy investors. Even with an aging population, taxes can be adjusted on the fly if the program starts to go into the red.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Yes perd, because facilitating constructive conversation is what you are all about.[/QUOTE]

Have you ever even READ what you wrote? Honesty is an issue, as it's pretty obvious you spend all your time lying about your own intentions to yourself.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']Have you ever even READ what you wrote? Honesty is an issue, as it's pretty obvious you spend all your time lying about your own intentions to yourself.[/QUOTE]

Yes, yes, yes. Msut is an asshole. Now, have you found the attacks in posts 5, 12 or 16? Would you like to submit any thoughts to the questions I posed?
 
hey all I'm saying is I told you so. Costs are going up. Government is spending more than it said it would. And hospital care is going to be overrun. But its not that bad right? Other countries do it right!

Also you keep bringing up the 7% per year, when last year it was 4% overall cost growth. 4% was a lower year, but have you done any research to substantiate that the 7%, and 4% are even comparable in the same terms to the 1% growth?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I would argue against a rainy day fund or being in the black. There is no need to satisfy investors. Even with an aging population, taxes can be adjusted on the fly if the program starts to go into the red.[/QUOTE]

Sure, but it's preferable (IMO) to keep it in the black and have a rainy day fund than to have to jack up taxes everytime the economy takes a down turn, or a war eats into tax revenue etc.

Just because it's public ran doesn't mean that it can't be self sufficient. Taxes will have to increase overtime to keep pace with inflation probably, but they should at least strive to keep it in the black with a rainy day fund to prevent random tax hikes when other segments of the economy hit a down turn or there's an unforeseen jump in health care costs etc.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']Have you ever even READ what you wrote? Honesty is an issue, as it's pretty obvious you spend all your time lying about your own intentions to yourself.[/QUOTE]

I know it is the more grown up version of "i'm rubber and you're glue" but you are definitely projecting here.

As for whatever knoell is bleating about the dishonest little toad intentionally ignores cost controls and offsets when talking about "costs", which is to be expected in a thread where the premise is a country that spends less than us on healthcare has gone broke.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']How does this prove Greece bankrupted itself through public health care?[/quote]

It doesn't prove that, nor was that what the OP said. The OP asserted that public health care contributed to Greece's situation. From what you posted, obviously you don't think that's true. I disagree, and I think at least the IMF agrees with me, since they are asking Greece to give up the system as a prerequisite for being bailed out.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']EDIT: Let's go over the articles just to be nice.[/quote]

How kind of you. :D

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']1. Companies dumping their employees' health care will backfire. It will either piss off your workers or it will fasttrack the country to a single payer system.[/quote]

Yes, it will do both of those things. And it's already being prepared by many companies. "If you like the health care you have, you can keep it." What a crock of shit. Yes, and Obama doesn't want to run the health-care system, just like he doesn't want to run the automobile industry. Right. Damn my lying eyes.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']2. We've been over this in the Obama care thread. Costs going up 1 percent under Obamacare instead of 7 percent before Obamacare is a positive.[/quote]

It's in addition to the anticipated increase, not in place of it. Costs are expected to rise that much more than they would have. This is not a positive.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']3. Triage anybody? Even if there is a million people in the ER, only the sickest get treated first. Do you know what happens? People who aren't very sick leave. When my daughter had an ear infection at 2AM and we hadn't received even one visit from a doctor by 5AM, we left and went to the urgent care facility when it opened at 10AM. Also, this is an opportunity to broaden initial patient review. If somebody shows up mid week with a sniffle, defer the person to an urgent care facility or recommend a GP.[/QUOTE]

Let me get this straight. The argument that has been made by the left all through the health-care debate is that health-care costs would decrease because less people would visit emergency rooms under the new law (never mind that the opposite happened in Massachusetts when a similar law was put into effect). Now you are telling me that health-care costs will decrease because emergency rooms will be so overcrowded people will leave instead of waiting for care. Does not compute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top