Debunking the 47 Million Myth - MyFoxmemphis Community Blog post
Of course, that leaves 3% of the population chronically uninsured for which something should be done, but that is a whole lot different than the numbers often tossed out there.
Debunking the 47 million uninsured Americans myth
- Thread starter Toro
- Start date
Debunking the 47 Million Myth - MyFoxmemphis Community Blog post
Of course, that leaves 3% of the population chronically uninsured for which something should be done, but that is a whole lot different than the numbers often tossed out there.
A little off topic but I'd love to hear your views on this...
Profit reports push Dow to best July in 20 years - Yahoo! News
NEW YORK – New hope for the economy just gave the stock market its best July in 20 years.
Investors placed big bets over the last month that the profit machine at U.S. companies will continue to rev higher and that the longest recession since World War II is finally easing its grip. If that turns out to be wrong, the huge gains of July mean there will be an even bigger price to pay if companies don't deliver.
The Dow surged 725 points or 8.6 percent for the month, with most of the gains arriving in bursts in the final 15 days. The extraordinary run shaped July into the best month for the blue chips since October 2002 and the best July since 1989. The Dow has risen four of the past five months.
Profit reports push Dow to best July in 20 years - Yahoo! News
NEW YORK – New hope for the economy just gave the stock market its best July in 20 years.
Investors placed big bets over the last month that the profit machine at U.S. companies will continue to rev higher and that the longest recession since World War II is finally easing its grip. If that turns out to be wrong, the huge gains of July mean there will be an even bigger price to pay if companies don't deliver.
The Dow surged 725 points or 8.6 percent for the month, with most of the gains arriving in bursts in the final 15 days. The extraordinary run shaped July into the best month for the blue chips since October 2002 and the best July since 1989. The Dow has risen four of the past five months.
Its like we haven't learned a damn thing! The economy this decade was predicated on a huge asset bubble in housing caused by, amongst other things, the Fed massively pumping money into the financial system. We are doing the exact same thing now and asset markets such as stocks, commodities, and even housing in Canada and China are taking off. We are creating the same imbalances that got us into the mess.
It amazes me that the stock price of Royal Bank is 15% below its all time highs. Absolutely amazing.
It is both mind-boggling and disheartening.
It amazes me that the stock price of Royal Bank is 15% below its all time highs. Absolutely amazing.
It is both mind-boggling and disheartening.
DO medicare/medicade recipients get the same coverage as some one who pays through the nose for private coverage? Or do they get the readers digest version?
I think at some point Canadas medical program is going to implode by trying to be all things to all people. Perhaps giving everyone the services that were available in the mid sixties when it was first set up is doable but we cannot afford to keep up with the technology for ever. Some things will simply have to be user pay or you pick a bundle like cable service and pay accordingly. Socialists hate two tier, believing that we should all suffer equally.
So, does a personal income of more than $50,000 automatically mean one can afford health insurance? This seems like a fallacy to me. What happens after the first heart attack, or other medical issues? I mean there must be some reason that a survey can find that half of personal bankruptcies involve unpaid medical bills...
The only people making money are the health care insurers.
Employer and Employee Health Insurance Costs
Employer and Employee Health Insurance Costs
- Premiums for employer-based health insurance rose by 5.0 percent in 2008. In 2007, small employers saw their premiums, on average, increase 5.5 percent. Firms with less than 24 workers, experienced an increase of 6.8 percent.2
- The annual premium that a health insurer charges an employer for a health plan covering a family of four averaged $12,700 in 2008. Workers contributed nearly $3,400, or 12 percent more than they did in 2007.2 The annual premiums for family coverage significantly eclipsed the gross earnings for a full-time, minimum-wage worker ($10,712).
- Workers are now paying $1,600 more in premiums annually for family coverage than they did in 1999.2
- Since 1999, employment-based health insurance premiums have increased 120 percent, compared to cumulative inflation of 44 percent and cumulative wage growth of 29 percent during the same period.2
- Health insurance expenses are the fastest growing cost component for employers. Unless something changes dramatically, health insurance costs will overtake profits by the end of 2008.5
- According to the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance in the United States have been rising four times faster on average than workers’ earnings since 1999.2
- The average employee contribution to company-provided health insurance has increased more than 120 percent since 2000. Average out-of-pocket costs for deductibles, co-payments for medications, and co-insurance for physician and hospital visits rose 115 percent during the same period.6
- The percentage of Americans under age 65 whose family-level, out-of-pocket spending for health care, including health insurance, that exceeds $2,000 a year, rose from 37.3 percent in 1996 to 43.1 percent in 2003 – a 16 percent increase.7
The private health care companies that get rich in America are now fighting an all out war in the US against a new proposal for universal health care, which probably explains a good part of the b.s. in the topic opener.
Juan
Would you care to address the topic in the OP? You haven't thus far. Instead, you've deflected the topic to the evils of the US healthcare system, which suggests you don't have an answer for the OP. I had not intended this thread to be about the differences between the US and Canadian system, though of course, that's what it will turn into.
If you wish to address the OP, I would be interested in hearing it.
Juan
Would you care to address the topic in the OP? You haven't thus far. Instead, you've deflected the topic to the evils of the US healthcare system, which suggests you don't have an answer for the OP. I had not intended this thread to be about the differences between the US and Canadian system, though of course, that's what it will turn into.
If you wish to address the OP, I would be interested in hearing it.
Toro, the breakdown of 47 million uninsured is nonsense. Those 47 million uninsured are potential burden to the taxpayer. If any of the uninsured suffers a catastrophic illness and as a result is faced with a huge medical bill (50000 or 100000 $), taxpayer will be on the hook for it, since these people have no insurance (Except in the very few cases where the patient can afford to pay that kind of money out of his own pocket).
For instance, those who earn 50,000 $ per year, let us say they can afford health insurance. Is that any reason to count them out from the 47 million? If they encounter huge medical bills, who is going to pay? The government, of course.
The point is, health care costs are out of control, the 47 million uninsured are a liability to the government, and something must be done about it. I was really surprised to read in the other thread that US government spends more money per capita in medical costs than Canadian government does. Even with the smaller amount, Canadian government supplies health care to all its citizens and does a very good job of it (life expectancy is higher in Canada and infant mortality lower than in USA).
US government spends more than Canadian government per capita and still can only manage to provide Medicare and Medicaid, 47 million people are still uninsured.
In my opinion it is a red herring to claim that only 3% of people are uninsured. It doesn’t matter why the 47 million are uninsured, taxpayer is still on the hook for it.
For instance, those who earn 50,000 $ per year, let us say they can afford health insurance. Is that any reason to count them out from the 47 million? If they encounter huge medical bills, who is going to pay? The government, of course.
The point is, health care costs are out of control, the 47 million uninsured are a liability to the government, and something must be done about it. I was really surprised to read in the other thread that US government spends more money per capita in medical costs than Canadian government does. Even with the smaller amount, Canadian government supplies health care to all its citizens and does a very good job of it (life expectancy is higher in Canada and infant mortality lower than in USA).
US government spends more than Canadian government per capita and still can only manage to provide Medicare and Medicaid, 47 million people are still uninsured.
In my opinion it is a red herring to claim that only 3% of people are uninsured. It doesn’t matter why the 47 million are uninsured, taxpayer is still on the hook for it.
It amazes me that the stock price of Royal Bank is 15% below its all time highs. Absolutely amazing.
It is both mind-boggling and disheartening.
Toro, and just what is amazing, mind-boggling and disheartening about it? Royal Bank is a solid, blue chip company with good fundamentals, great long term prospects. Currently it is paying a whopping 6.47% dividend, much more than any bond or GIC or Money Market Fund will pay you.
Unlike US counterparts, Royal Bank has not been in any trouble, it has been making healthy profit, why should it not be within 15% of its all time high? Indeed, why shouldn’t be at an all time high?
Don’t’ confuse Canadian banks with US banks, Canadian banks are very sound, well managed company with bright long term prospects.
It is both mind-boggling and disheartening.
Toro, and just what is amazing, mind-boggling and disheartening about it? Royal Bank is a solid, blue chip company with good fundamentals, great long term prospects. Currently it is paying a whopping 6.47% dividend, much more than any bond or GIC or Money Market Fund will pay you.
Unlike US counterparts, Royal Bank has not been in any trouble, it has been making healthy profit, why should it not be within 15% of its all time high? Indeed, why shouldn’t be at an all time high?
Don’t’ confuse Canadian banks with US banks, Canadian banks are very sound, well managed company with bright long term prospects.
Sir Joseph
It is important to understand the context of the argument. If most of the uninsured are people who can afford to buy insurance but choose not to and are people are who shouldn't even be in the country in the first place, then the problem of the uninsured is not as great as it seems. Designing programs based on incorrect data is poor public policy. And most of those people without insurance are not a burden (primarily) on the taxpayer since it is not the government that is reimbursing the bills. They are a burden primarily on the private system.
As for the Royal Bank, you must understand what is occurring in the global economy. The asset markets - stocks, commodities, housing - are being lifted by an enormous surge in liquidity, not by fundamentals. That liquidity is being felt primarily in the asset markets, not the general economy, at least not yet. This is why its stock is so high. The creation of excess liquidity is the primary reason why we are in this mess. Royal Bank stock is a symptom of this.
It is important to understand the context of the argument. If most of the uninsured are people who can afford to buy insurance but choose not to and are people are who shouldn't even be in the country in the first place, then the problem of the uninsured is not as great as it seems. Designing programs based on incorrect data is poor public policy. And most of those people without insurance are not a burden (primarily) on the taxpayer since it is not the government that is reimbursing the bills. They are a burden primarily on the private system.
As for the Royal Bank, you must understand what is occurring in the global economy. The asset markets - stocks, commodities, housing - are being lifted by an enormous surge in liquidity, not by fundamentals. That liquidity is being felt primarily in the asset markets, not the general economy, at least not yet. This is why its stock is so high. The creation of excess liquidity is the primary reason why we are in this mess. Royal Bank stock is a symptom of this.
As for the Royal Bank, you must understand what is occurring in the global economy. The asset markets - stocks, commodities, housing - are being lifted by an enormous surge in liquidity, not by fundamentals. That liquidity is being felt primarily in the asset markets, not the general economy, at least not yet. This is why its stock is so high. The creation of excess liquidity is the primary reason why we are in this mess. Royal Bank stock is a symptom of this.
Toro, Royal Bank stock (and indeed, any Canadian bank) is high because the fundamentals are sound. Royal bank was not involved in sub prime lending to any appreciable extent. Bulk of its earnings come from service fees they charge to the customers (and the straight loans they make, not sub prime), and not from pie in the sky scheme like sub prime lending.
It is paying a substantial, healthy dividend (6.47%), it price to earning ratio is very modest (9.80). By comparison, IBM has p/e ratio of 12.1, Microsoft 13.84). By any criteria, it is a sound, well managed company with good long term prospects. The only way its future prospects could be considered dim is if we assume a wholesale worldwide depression, whereby we have a huge unemployment in Canada. If we go back to the Great Depression, then I agree, Royal Bank’s long term prospects are poor. But failing that, Royal Bank (And indeed, any Canadian bank) is a well managed, efficient company with good long term prospects. In my opinion, stocks of Canadian banks are doing well for very good reason.
Toro, Royal Bank stock (and indeed, any Canadian bank) is high because the fundamentals are sound. Royal bank was not involved in sub prime lending to any appreciable extent. Bulk of its earnings come from service fees they charge to the customers (and the straight loans they make, not sub prime), and not from pie in the sky scheme like sub prime lending.
It is paying a substantial, healthy dividend (6.47%), it price to earning ratio is very modest (9.80). By comparison, IBM has p/e ratio of 12.1, Microsoft 13.84). By any criteria, it is a sound, well managed company with good long term prospects. The only way its future prospects could be considered dim is if we assume a wholesale worldwide depression, whereby we have a huge unemployment in Canada. If we go back to the Great Depression, then I agree, Royal Bank’s long term prospects are poor. But failing that, Royal Bank (And indeed, any Canadian bank) is a well managed, efficient company with good long term prospects. In my opinion, stocks of Canadian banks are doing well for very good reason.
If most of the uninsured are people who can afford to buy insurance but choose not to and are people are who shouldn't even be in the country in the first place, then the problem of the uninsured is not as great as it seems.
The problem is still great, Toro. If any of them incur substantial medical bills due to catastrophic illness, government is on the hook for paying it.
And most of those people without insurance are not a burden (primarily) on the taxpayer since it is not the government that is reimbursing the bills. They are a burden primarily on the private system.
How does that work? If a hospital treats a patient, and patient cannot pay the 100,000 $ bill, who is responsible for is? My understanding was that government will reimburse the hospital for it. It doesn’t, does the hospital have to absorb the loss?
Are the uninsured the problem of the government or the private sector? My understanding was that it was the problem of the government.
The problem is still great, Toro. If any of them incur substantial medical bills due to catastrophic illness, government is on the hook for paying it.
And most of those people without insurance are not a burden (primarily) on the taxpayer since it is not the government that is reimbursing the bills. They are a burden primarily on the private system.
How does that work? If a hospital treats a patient, and patient cannot pay the 100,000 $ bill, who is responsible for is? My understanding was that government will reimburse the hospital for it. It doesn’t, does the hospital have to absorb the loss?
Are the uninsured the problem of the government or the private sector? My understanding was that it was the problem of the government.
Partially uninsured people are considered statistically covered. Just because your employer covers expenses for your glasses doesn't mean you are fully covered. Therefore, the actual number of uninisured is well in excess of 47 million.
Joseph
PE ratio on RY is 16x, trades at a price to book of 2.7x, tangible book of 4.7x.
RY - ROYAL BANK OF CANADA Financial Ratios - Forbes.com
That is expensive, even in a good environment, not one where the economy is dependent on commodity prices that have been rising because of enormous amounts of liquidity flooding the system, not because of fundamentals.
It has a dividend yield of 4.2% as it is paying a dividend of 50 cents. That's not bad.
rbc.com - RBC - Media Newsroom
The stock has also been going up because Canada currently has a cachet in international markets right now because the Canadian financial system is one of if not the strongest in the world. Traders like buzz, and most Canadian banks are the buzz at the moment.
As for the hospital bill, it is usually eaten by the hospital, which then tries to recoup its losses by billing those who pay higher amounts. That's one reason why bills are so high. Something like 15%-20% of emergency room treatments can't pay but hospitals can't turn them away. Many hospitals also have a slush fund to cover people who cannot pay. Often hospitals will engage in charity drives for this. Sometimes, local governments will kick in to help cover emergency room treatments but most of the cost accrues to the hospital. We had a referendum in our county a few years back to raise the sales tax by 0.5% to help cover uninsured medical costs but the voters rejected it.
PE ratio on RY is 16x, trades at a price to book of 2.7x, tangible book of 4.7x.
RY - ROYAL BANK OF CANADA Financial Ratios - Forbes.com
That is expensive, even in a good environment, not one where the economy is dependent on commodity prices that have been rising because of enormous amounts of liquidity flooding the system, not because of fundamentals.
It has a dividend yield of 4.2% as it is paying a dividend of 50 cents. That's not bad.
rbc.com - RBC - Media Newsroom
The stock has also been going up because Canada currently has a cachet in international markets right now because the Canadian financial system is one of if not the strongest in the world. Traders like buzz, and most Canadian banks are the buzz at the moment.
As for the hospital bill, it is usually eaten by the hospital, which then tries to recoup its losses by billing those who pay higher amounts. That's one reason why bills are so high. Something like 15%-20% of emergency room treatments can't pay but hospitals can't turn them away. Many hospitals also have a slush fund to cover people who cannot pay. Often hospitals will engage in charity drives for this. Sometimes, local governments will kick in to help cover emergency room treatments but most of the cost accrues to the hospital. We had a referendum in our county a few years back to raise the sales tax by 0.5% to help cover uninsured medical costs but the voters rejected it.