Numbers from the paper come directly from OECD. I don't think there was any political bias involved.
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=REV
As for Brookings, according to their Wiki, they're pretty middle-of-the-road, and seem to be oft-cited by folks from across the spectrum. If they're considered liberal, I'm not aware of it:
Brookings states that its staff "represent diverse points of view" and describes itself as non-partisan,[1][13] and the media sometimes describes Brookings as either "conservative",[14] "centrist"[15] or "liberal."[16] An academic analysis of Congressional records from 1993 to 2002 found that Brookings was referenced by conservative politicians almost as frequently as liberal politicians, earning a score of 53 on a 1–100 scale with 100 representing the most liberal score.[17] The same study found Brookings to be the most frequently cited think tank by the US media and politicians
that have universal healthcare have dramatically lower per capita health expenditures, mostly because single payers have higher buying power and they have much better liability laws. It is very possible (if these systems are any model) that we would improve health care efficiency through a single payer system.
And yes, if we taxed for that and provided health care we would be much higher on the list. And don't forget the education that most of these countries provide to more citizens at lower cost/free, which if we provided might put us #1 by a lot. But it's not because of inefficiency, it's because of a MUCH, MUCH higher per capita military expenditure than any of these other countries. If we provided the same level of benefits as them AND remained the developed world's primary provider of security/stability, it would obviously cost the most.
Add Spain to the list of countries with universal healthcare that have massive backlogs or will deny treatment at some point. Saw it firsthand with family members still there where the Dr. basically said continuing treatment wasn't worth it and that we should say goodbye now as our relative sure to die shortly. She was in a room, dying, surrounded by 20 other people getting treatment at the same time. That would never happen in the US....treatments would have continued until dying breath and I doubt they would have multiple people dying in a room.
The existence of backlogs for treatment in NO WAY necessarily indicates inefficiency. If a country had no doctors, hospitals or any healthcare at all, it wouldn't have backlogs. Is that an efficient system? We have huge numbers of people that do not have access to healthcare at all. That's a good way to keep backlogs down, but not a good way to be efficient. Would most of those uninsured kill just to be on a waitlist for treatment? Waiting is better than not getting it at all. Want to know how we know? Facts!
Efficiency is usually defined by outcomes/success per unit/amount of resources spent to acheive that outcome. The US spends 16.4 percent of our GDP or a whopping $8,713/person on healthcare. We spend the most in the world per capita by quite a bit. Canada spends only 10.4 percent of their GDP which is less than half the amount per person than the US. And they have better outcomes! The US, despite spending the most of healthcare, has the worst outcomes and lowest life expectancy out of any of the ten highest spending countries.
Granted, our demographics and culture puts us at a disadvantage compared to other rich countries but not so much that we should be spending TWICE as much per person on healthcare and still getting worse outcomes.
There's a reason very few people in Canada complain about those backlogs (most are happy to be on it!) and they wouldn't think about doing it differently (see the first source below and any poll of Canadians on the topic). Plus, Canada is usually considered one of the worst universal healthcare systems, compared to the UK, Australia, etc. and they still like their system better than we do.
Sources: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirr…
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/11/14/24-7-wall-st-c…
I suspect we don't see eye-to-eye on much other than Michigan football, but maybe there's some common ground.
Almost all developed countries tax at higher rates than us.
As you said, many provide more government-funded health care (at varying levels/methods).
If your Austria comparison indicates you favor government-funded health care for all, I agree. I work in health care, mostly on the benefits side. Medicare, while far from perfect, does a pretty good job ensuring all seniors have access to health care.
IMO, it's more efficient and cost-effective to provide the same security and access to everyone ("Medicare for all") than our current system. I can say with confidence that health care costs aren't high primarily due to government waste/inefficiency. Every part of the system bears responsibility - insurers, hospitals, providers, pharma, device manufacturers, arcane pricing/billing/reimbursement system.
Lots of room for debate about public vs. private or some combination, but current system of employer-based coverage + individual policies + government plans (Medicare, VA, Medicaid, etc.) and subsidies, is cumbersome and complex.
Now, about waste and inefficiency.
I honestly don't understand your comment. Of course they exist, but is your point that waste is greater here than elsewhere, or just a general complaint about government waste? Do other countries have greater accountability?
It seems likely there's similar waste in governments of all developed countries, but I've never lived anywhere else so have no point of comparison.
Sure, there's government waste here - but no way it accounts for a big % of our tax dollars (at least Federal taxes).
I lived in DC for years. While I never worked for the government, I was overwhelmingly impressed by the competence and work ethic of most people I knew who did.
If you look at how Federal tax dollars are spent, at least 60% couldn't be affected much by waste and inefficiency (mostly funds paid out through social security and other programs, + debt service).
My source is the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-…
Of the remaining ~40%, I agree there's probably significant waste and inefficiency in running government programs and defense spending. Even if most waste were eliminated, it would only save a small portion of 40% of our tax dollars.
So, I'll grant that running our government super efficiently might save us a couple % points of taxes - a laudable goal for sure.
The only way to significantly lower taxes is to cut programs or spending, and there are only 3 really big pots - Social Security, Medicare, and Defense. That's about 60% of all government spending.
Cuts to any/all other programs wouldn't affect the budget much, unless eliminated or hugely cut back. For example, less than 1% of spending is on non-defense international programs, including all foreign aid, development and crisis spending.
I suppose slashing programs for the poor and infirm (Earned income tax credits, unemployment, Medicaid, disability, food stamps, etc.) would save pretty big money. That seems cruel and un-American to me, and even their total elimination would only save10-15% of the budget.
My point? Waste and inefficiency aren't where most tax dollars go, nor to most government programs, foreign aid or safety net.
Social Security, Medicare and Defense is where 60% goes. Unless those are targeted, overall federal spending won't change much.
Liberal
It's unfortunate that trying to remediate / improve the environment is a political issue
Is that supposed to be an insult? An observation? A middle finger to the no-politics rule?
I am a big advocate for clean air and water but there needs to be a balance. This country has recognized this problem (some of us are old enough to remember when we had rivers that could catch fire from chemical dumping) and has come a long way and needs to continue to improve. There are ways to make improvements without increasing the headwinds on American businesses in a manner that makes them less competitive in a global economy and where competitiors don't have the same concerns. There needs to be sensible balances put in place.
in this discussion. using such things will prevent it from becoming a too-hot political thread, destined for a red-lock.
So you talk about a subject that IS absolutely & directly the result of politics, allow misinformation to be unintentionally disseminated out of ignorance of politics, as designed by by the toxic mixture of corporations/the wealthy and government, whom both own and control the vast majority of the media and public information, and disallow the more pertinent answers because that would be politics!
Discussing things that have political roots while disallowing the things certain people see as political, while other people clearly see the politics embedded in the things people say who claim not to be political, is in itself political.
It's the worst kind of political discussion, the kind that specifically forbids the truth from even being talked about.
This is precisely 113.367893 zillion times more destructive and dangerous than anything, anyone, or everyone some of you might think we need to build walls to keep out.
This is a really common occurrence (boil water advisories) whenever there is a main break, WM replacement or, like this instance, some other appurtenance failure.
Making this into some political or systematic issue is asinine.
You're conflating high-income (earned) with wealthy, and they are far from the same thing. Wealth is preferred over earned income in our tax system, and not just by a little. I think if people understand how taxation works at the very top (0.1 percent and above) then perspectives would change drastically.
This is actually true. The wealthiest people gain their wealth through investment income, which is taxed very differently than wage income.
Investment has risk associated with it. Risk and rates of return are related including within our tax code.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Just wanted to alert the good people of Livonia and Farmington Hills to be safe. Not to turn into some weird "state of the union" on water.