Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

China scolds US over S&P credit downgrade

Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
August 7, 2011 12:25:03 PM

China has scolded the US over its "addiction to debt" after rating agency Standard & Poor's downgraded the US' top-notch AAA rating to AA+. The downgrade ended a week of growing uncertainty for the world economy. Fears that the US might be headed for a double-dip recession and the eurozone's debt problems were set to spread to Italy and Spain saw stock market sell-offs around the world.

Although I am not a big fan of rating agencies, and think that they were part of the problem which first created the bubble upto 2008 financial markets crash, I believe the US debt is heading to dangerous levels now, and if nothing concrete is done in near future, the likes of China (who already have started changing strategy with regard to $ along with other BRICS countries) will probably move away from dollar, weakening it further, which in turn will hurt the economy even more. Interestingly they also want printing of US currency to be checked, perhaps put under some sort of international control, now that is like opening Pandora's box.
August 7, 2011 2:21:34 PM

The printing of US Currency is already restricted by US law.

If somebody wanted to work up an international currency, or some international currency agreement that restricted everybody, that'd be an idea worth looking into, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Besides, they're worried that a weak dollar is good for US exports, bad for foreign imports to the US. Who knew? They don't necessarily have the interests of the US at heart.

August 7, 2011 2:28:13 PM

No not about any export issues, they are worried about their almost total investment in dollar terms along with trillion of dollars of cash reserves.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
August 7, 2011 2:33:56 PM

The US should immediately put into place import tariffs to effectively increase the price of Chinese goods coming into the country.

That is what I would do ... effectively raising a revenue stream to counter the deficit ... and hopefully a decrease in imports overall.

This would help re-energise US light manufacturing (composites / plastics / extrusion technology) and provide a local base for these, along with much needed jobs creation.

The US also needs to reduce H1B visa's to promote local graduate employment, and reduce the reliance on overseas trained engineering graduates.

The best way to deal with the Chinese, who are holding a great deal of the US debt, is to cripple their chief revenue stream ... which is the US.

Two can play at that game.

August 7, 2011 3:08:53 PM

The problem is if US does this, and Chinese are sure that they have no option but to fight back, they simply need to dump all their 3.xxx trillion dollar reserves and trillions other in bonds/securities, what that would do is simply send dollar into a un-recoverable crash and we'll be back to square one.

So IMO what US need to do is address its domestic debt problem, put their house in order that is they need a Govt. which work (unfortunately since Reagan started this slide no true leader has emerged to stop it) to protect and serve people not to protect and serve 'interest groups', e.g. financial industry. Additionally they need to understand 'the real economy' is the manufacturing sector not the 'financial sector'. Unfortunately politicians in WDC do not want to understand this, because 'debt creation' is a very profitable business.

I agree with your point of view about putting a stop to imported workers/engineers.
August 7, 2011 3:27:11 PM

Oh no, let's keep importing their engineers! Brain drain is good!

But let's stop training so many lawyers. Too many law school graduates.

I suppose we could export them.
August 7, 2011 3:32:56 PM

The Chinese would not be able to do this ... it isn't possible without destabilising their own economy.

They also have an inflation problem of their own and without sufficient work for their workers their own government would see civil unrest in a matter of weeks, and then food shortages ... then a return to the one child policy.

They have too many mouths to feed and have become trapped by their own greed.

Import tariffs would send a clear message.
August 7, 2011 3:34:13 PM

MysticMiner said:
Oh no, let's keep importing their engineers! Brain drain is good!

But let's stop training so many lawyers. Too many law school graduates.

I suppose we could export them.


Yes, more skilled workers please (electricians, carpenters, scientists, technicians, doctors) and less high-school dropouts and useless bankers and lawyers, please! And have people just pay their taxes because the US debt is entirely a political problem for a country whose local and federal expenditures are pretty low for a developed country.
August 7, 2011 3:40:56 PM

Only for short term, as from what I've seen in recent years they have been diversifying their investment and finding new markets. Take the case of India for example, in last few years China and India have been increasing their trade significantly, I think in about 10-20 years US will not be that much important for Chinese for that matter. Because as these economies along with other BRICS countries grow they will become more interdependent, hence discounting the US factor. Anyway that is totally different debate.

As I said earlier, US needs an effective government led by an able and honest leader, not some one who over-hyped change and then did absolutely nothing but to do the total opposite.
August 7, 2011 3:43:38 PM

The problem isn't just with the leader. Stop focusing on the guy at the top, sometimes there are issues deeper in the pyramid.

August 7, 2011 3:52:16 PM

I may have sounded like as if I was focusing on one person, but in reality yes your point of view that system is at fault as well is absolutely valid.

TBH it isn't a democracy anymore, it is a 'plutonomy' as the Citibank memo said few years ago.
August 7, 2011 3:56:04 PM

Reynod said:
The US should immediately put into place import tariffs to effectively increase the price of Chinese goods coming into the country.

That is what I would do ... effectively raising a revenue stream to counter the deficit ... and hopefully a decrease in imports overall.

This would help re-energise US light manufacturing (composites / plastics / extrusion technology) and provide a local base for these, along with much needed jobs creation.

The US also needs to reduce H1B visa's to promote local graduate employment, and reduce the reliance on overseas trained engineering graduates.

The best way to deal with the Chinese, who are holding a great deal of the US debt, is to cripple their chief revenue stream ... which is the US.

Two can play at that game.

I'll try, point by point

Tarriffs have been mostly open market, and this admin would rather choke its own peoples/businesses in regs than head in this direction, which is also taboo from a republican POV, for the most part.
Its been done before, but more on a political position.

As for light manu, once again those ugly regs creep in, and is against many on the dems side of things, as pollutants and varying other constraints and outlooks from Washington have hamstrung many

This also is mainly a dem held postion, as those funds and positions of power have long been held by dems, it aint gonna happen til the dems get voted out, as they wont compromise, period

Finally some wriggle room. As to how the US slows its dollars moving towards China, can vary in loosening regs here at home, buying what US manu are left by spending a little more on it, all the while, still meeting our commitments to our debts, without tarriffs etc.
Promotional tax incentives towards these areas would spark huge investments, currently lying about doing nothing, where the US exports could become competitive, thereby also reducing the current scales tilting away from the US favor
Theres many things that can be done, even temp enviro laws changed, as China doesnt have them, uses awful materials not even needed here, with no enviro constraints coming from their government.
We dont do lead, China does
Telling Obama he cant shut down the coal industry as hes promised to do, as the US has more than anywhere else on the planet.
Opening drilling rights in various places etc etc

Not only job creators, but again, less monies flowing out, more staying in.
You cant build a mansion as you see fit, without the funding to do so, and many US policies have done just that
August 7, 2011 3:58:00 PM

Yes I agree poor Obama is just stuck with the cards he has been dealt with ... more emergencies and dramas than ER.

I for one don't think he has been given a fair go.

How can you lead effectively with the level of interference from the republicans / TEA party of late?

Look at the end result ... stock market crash ... credit downgrade ... country is in a worse state ... not for lack of trying on his part.

Remember the previous injection of funds he provided was to soften the blow of the GFC ... to try to increase jobs creation ... well meant ... the jur is out on whether it was particularly effective.

We had a similar scheme here ... as did many other countries.

August 7, 2011 4:06:57 PM

As he and his own party concentrated on the debt ceiling, it was only a small part, and actually the gauranteed part, to be delat with.
What those "other" guys concentrated on, and were villified for, was the cuts, which were inadequate, and thus the S&P's actions.
They were the bad guys concentrating on the hard parts, warning everyone, and are still looked as villains to this day.
No country has that much monies, as we need, and will surely come from the FED, thus the easy part.
As for easing regs, reducing spending, or, the hard part, we havnt heard a thing from the dems, and only retracted words from Obama, as the Boehner walkout showed earlier, as Obama raised the borrowing amount, and didnt add a thing to spending cuts.
So, anyone who disputes these things, all they have to do is either look it up, or wait and see how it goes.
If this is the first time hearing this, then get more involved in your understanding, and throw away your partisanship, and look at the hard numbers.
August 7, 2011 4:12:36 PM

As to his stimulus, we truly cant blame Obama, other than for oversight, as many of those dollars went frivolously flying into the then controlled congressional hands of the dems, where productivity vs costs were insane.
I blame congress for this, as the stimulus was needed, but was poorly handled, and the dems had the reins
Going along with this is the remnants of what is called rino republicans, which is also a wasteful lot

Ill add, leadership requires oversight
August 7, 2011 4:13:46 PM

There are few hard numbers, there are just different numbers brought up by different sides, many of which mean nothing.

What's worse is when they complain about the other people's numbers when they themselves used them in their own calculations. Eric Cantor, I'm looking at you.

Besides, you forget that the Republicans refused to talk about increasing revenues, even through correcting loopholes, unless they got what they wanted, which was more and more tax cuts.

They already got that. And they didn't cut spending. So let's stop pretending that starving the beast is a good idea. Starvation is not healthy.
August 7, 2011 4:20:03 PM

Also factor in the needlessly longish wars, IMO a war should be swift / target oriented. Once these are achieved pack everything up and go home. Because the cost of war no matter how short it is can be very huge. What government has been doing is, financing wars by postponing its impact on the national finances, by guess what ....... borrowing. I think Adam Smith's point of view* with regard to financing wars hold some value. In fact the way the war machine is run is beautifully summarized in the book named 'The Pentagon Labyrinth'.

* Wars be financed on a pay-as-you-go basis. He wrote that if people felt the economic impact of war immediately – rather than postponing it by borrowing – they would be less likely to support military adventurism.
August 7, 2011 6:13:19 PM

No No No No
Hard numbers- 4 trillion in cuts
Nothing mystical to drag us back to partisanship
See S&P

I'll remind, once we all know the number, then starts partisanship, but getting there first the numbers have to be understood
August 7, 2011 6:21:13 PM

And that 4 trillion in cuts is?? They can't cut 4 trillion at once. The total spending is around 3 trillion.

Any figure of 4 trillion would be weighed out over time, not instantly.

You do understand that, right?

August 7, 2011 8:17:05 PM

Gulli said:
And have people just pay their taxes because the US debt is entirely a political problem for a country whose local and federal expenditures are pretty low for a developed country.

What?

Our problem is debt. And it recently exceeded our annual GDP. And I see another S&P downgrade coming, because we will not get our debt under control:
http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110807/bs_nm/us_crisis...
August 7, 2011 8:27:06 PM

Japan's total debt load is much more than the US's.

The problem is not debt, it's the attitude towards it.

A person can be fine if they take out a loan for several times their annual income to get a house. But not if they keep using a charge card because they refuse to collect the debts owed to them.

August 7, 2011 8:33:13 PM

If the world stopped buying things from China or slap a huge import tax on them they would change their attitude. Why is it China has an import tax on our stuff but their stuff being imported doesn't.
August 7, 2011 8:38:37 PM

"No nation ever taxed itself into prosperity." I believe it was Winston Churchill who said it, but it should be intuitively obvious. The US today has taxes on top of fees on top of restrictions and regulations, none of which were present during the Industrial Revolution, or even until the past few decades. That said, I remain in favor of extremely strong environmental protections; we can't "poop where we eat and sleep." Otherwise, we've got to put an end to human parasitism in all its forms.
August 7, 2011 8:41:57 PM

And what nations took austerity as a path into prosperity? Very few companies do.

I certainly don't know of any that worked very long by giving everything away. And I know plenty that have taken a load of debt, used it to fund expansion and prospered nicely.


August 7, 2011 8:52:53 PM

Yes, a certain amount of debt, undertaken with specific repayment plans, can be useful to anyone (businesses do it all the time). Repayment is often based on increased productivity that will be realized with the capital or other expansion achieved by the debt. Unfortunately, the parasites have been using deficit spending to buy votes, not to increase productive capacity anywhere, so there's no commensurate increase available to repay it. Under these circumstances, a default is a certainty, OR the parasites will steal the value from all of our [existing] money by simply printing more of it.
August 7, 2011 8:58:10 PM

Actually there's plenty of resources available to repay it. It's just not being utilized.

The mantra of tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts is leading to lots of parasites.
August 7, 2011 9:43:00 PM

MysticMiner said:
Actually there's plenty of resources available to repay it. It's just not being utilized.

The mantra of tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts is leading to lots of parasites.



That makes so sense. People keeping what they earn creates parasites?
August 7, 2011 9:46:32 PM

Why are taxes collected?


August 7, 2011 11:02:35 PM

MysticMiner said:
And that 4 trillion in cuts is?? They can't cut 4 trillion at once. The total spending is around 3 trillion.

Any figure of 4 trillion would be weighed out over time, not instantly.

You do understand that, right?

What the 4 trillion represents is current loan debt vs revenues.
Its like a family buyimg a house, car food etc
They pay all their bills, but their commitments to their debt escalates to a point where theres no wriggle room, and the forecast is dim.
You do realize what little was cut is spread over years dont you?
August 7, 2011 11:08:16 PM

MysticMiner said:
Actually there's plenty of resources available to repay it. It's just not being utilized.

The mantra of tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts is leading to lots of parasites.

This coming after you just said we dont even make those sums?
Get the numbers, realize what a Moodys would accept % wise of GDP to pay it down, cut spending to those levels, and there you have it.
Yes, projections need to be run, as with anything of a business climate, its just government doesnt do business models well at all, but theyve spent our wriggle room up
August 7, 2011 11:22:13 PM

When you tax corporations, that ultimately enters onto the profit/loss sheet.
To compete, the lower the taxes, the more room for competitive pricing
If we want to move exports, it behooves the government to lower those taxesItll feed into higher productivity, which will cause more tax flows.
There can be a formula decided upon, but all sides have to understand each impact.
Lowering Corp taxes would stimulate growth
If you look, the lib portion uses the GDP and not the rates themselves, to make their argument.
What this means is, small business is much more a wider contributor to the overall makeup of the GDP, and where Obama wants to taz next, those making 250 K a year or more.
If I had to pay 39% of every dollar I made, it means little difference what % of all corp pays in the overall GDP, its still 39%, 2nd highest on the planet, only superceded by Japan
August 7, 2011 11:28:37 PM

I don't believe you understood what I was talking about, since I was referring to spending(3.5 trillion), which is currently greater than revenues(2 trillion), which causes a deficit(1.5 trillion), which as it adds up becomes the national debt(currently around 14.5 trillion), some of it decades old.

The revenues being 2 trillion does not mean that is the maximum, it could be higher with a little sensible reform.

I do not know where your 4 trillion in cuts is coming from, but it certainly won't come from eliminating the entirety of the federal budget in one year.

That would be a bad idea, I hope you can understand why.

But we have a lot of wriggle room in regards increasing revenues, the current effective rates are quite low. Even lower than the Clinton or Reagan years, let alone that of Eisenhower. That's right, effective rates. Do not presume that corporations do actually pay that flat number. Some like GE had a NEGATIVE tax rate.

Also, a country is not a household, the economics are different. For one thing, tax revenue isn't magically consumed, but is paid out, including to individuals who do work for the government, and spend their money.






August 7, 2011 11:30:06 PM


In FY2000, Federal tax revenues were $2.03 trillion.
In FY2011, anticipated Federal tax revenues are $2.17 trillion.

GDP has increased 55% - tax receipts 6%

The Republicans have put politics above America, and refuse to cover their unpaid debts nor pay for their corporate welfare, tax cuts and war.

August 8, 2011 12:59:53 AM

Yes, 39% isnt enough, possibly 49% would do it.
Maybe 59%, that should really do it.

People with passive incomes get taxed the least, theyre the ones slacking here
Not regular Joe, small business guy etc etc
Nor corporations, as the numbers prove out
When the republicans speak on the 2 trillion sitting doing little, its the passive tax payers, ala Warren Buffet, who pays less % wise than his secretary

The republicans have been honest, and we all need to push all towards gaining revenues from the passive tax payer
Not the little guy, not the corp, not the small business man

Our long term debt is whats been downgraded, as Ive said, it doesnt look good, thimng are too tight, no wriggle room
The spending reductions simply werent made in large enough sizes to affect those long term debts
Seeing our revenue picture, its obvious to S&P that cuts need to be had
Raising taxes promises nothing, as those monies can be easily spent
The easy part, the spending part, that has to be curtailed
Taxation isnt easy
Cant spend more money, no wriggle room
Budgets are proposed with growth included in them, regardless of revenues
If the economy doesnt keep pace with this at the very least, and no new spending is done, we then have a deficit, even with a balanced sheet

The whole premise of spending is somewhat tilted as we the tax payer applies debt in our households.
Government includes a automatic set % of growth in spending, regardless of revenues, which simply cant be done at home.
Then new regulations and taxes are applied to keep their wriggle room, which only squeezes you and I, the taxpayer
Since theyve spent so much, and weve realised our GDP and taxable %, all this has to stop
We have to shrink government, not only its taxation, but its regulations as well
If one thinks we can tax our way out of this, and keep raising debt ceilings, we will be back here sooner than you think
August 8, 2011 1:02:35 AM

Government has its grubby fingers in too many pies. Our Government's chartered purpose is "...to secure these rights." Now of course that has a cost, and we need to have taxes to pay it. Everything else the government does is fluff...welfare (ESPECIALLY when funded by extorted wealth), Medicare, Medicaid, foreign aid, NASA (much as I've always loved the space program), the "Arts"; NONE of it is a government job, and forcefully confiscating the funds to pay for them (or borrowing eventually-confiscated funds) is categorically Wrong, and violates the rights of those losing the fruits of their labors to pay for it.
"Tax cuts" don't work, because they're on a whim, and can be cancelled or reversed at any time. Only enshrining the limitations for which Government may tax (e.g. its chartered purpose) into the Constitution, thereby removing politicians' whims from tax law, will allow companies (and others with money) to relax and use it to hire, build infrastructure, and all the things America did so well even through the 1950s. In the meantime, companies are holding vast amounts of cash because they're not sure it's safe to spend it.
August 8, 2011 1:14:35 AM

And many believe those monies better spent, all at once mind you, for the people, and to pay down the governments notorious ways in spending
Forget investing it, we want it all now, like children
August 8, 2011 1:17:40 AM

Earlier, in another thread, I warned of this, and its not just the US, but all the markets, our allies etc.

We can blame Bush, we can blame S&P, but someone needs to man up here and shrink their beloved government
August 8, 2011 2:46:15 AM

Everything else the government does is fluff? The roads near me don't feel very fluffy. They actually feel like vital life-lines to commerce and fulfillment of life. Dozens of other things too. Including the people who are quite happy that they do have Medicaid and Medicare because it enables them to stay alive and not burn through all their resources to do so. I could wish they would do better, but no public option yet. Same with NASA, they've contributed greatly to life, or do you think you'd have GPS without it? Or Weather data? Or any number of other things.

I think I'll pass on your declarations of the role of government. Especially since you didn't provide an exact quote.

Here's a better one:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And that's just one, some of us have further charters applicable to us.


August 8, 2011 3:09:36 AM

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..." that's enough. The Constitution is the How-to manual, the Declaration of Independence is the goal, on which the legal light has been switched off, in order to allow the parasites to do what they please.
There is no doubt that any number of programs are good, and even the most wasteful, preposterous government programs help somebody. Insofar as roads are the means by which government ensures the access of its agents, as necessary, "to secure these rights," one can argue that roads, and many other aspects of infrastructure, are in fact at least partially a government job. In any event, whatever else the government does, must not violate its charter, namely the preservation of INALIENABLE (i.e. they may not be taken away!) rights. People's failure to save for their retirement, or obtain medical coverage, or form strong family and community bonds that have long served to preserve the dignity and lifestyles of the elderly do not give a Big Brother government a mandate to violate others' rights to provide those things.
August 8, 2011 3:12:16 AM

The preamble is simply explaining why
August 8, 2011 3:14:59 AM

What jtt said is law and relevent, unlike the preamble, we the people
August 8, 2011 3:17:26 AM

You might want to quote the next clause:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

By and large, people seem to support Medicare and Social Security. i think the government has been given a mandate.

Which is not the Orwellian Big Brother you think it is, or it was feared to become, all those decades ago. Strange, apparently it didn't go bad.

But you seem opposed to the idea that we, as a people, can't even alter or amend the government as we see fit. But your own source of a goal covers that principle as well.

If you want to argue that the choice is wrong, you will have to change your method of persuasion, because your arguments simply do not add up.

^^

That's a quote from the Declaration of Independence. Are you saying it's law, but that of part of the Constitution is not?

Talk about inconsistent arguments. The Preamble explains the purpose. And courts actually have referred to it for that purpose.

You may argue it's not formal law, but that applies to the Declaration of Independence as well. It still expresses the intent and meaning of the Constitution, as expressed by the opinions of those who wrote it.

Do you not want to know why they were declaring their government?







August 8, 2011 3:32:24 AM

Yes, and Jefferson's other writings (sometimes in reference to events of his time) have made clear the reasons for the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
August 8, 2011 3:40:39 AM

Maybe, but it could have been better written, along with a few other parts.

Some of which have been amended, but there's still some flaws. However we won't get a Constitutional Convention so it's a pipe dream to worry about anyway.

August 8, 2011 11:34:11 AM

Onus said:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..." that's enough. The Constitution is the How-to manual, the Declaration of Independence is the goal, on which the legal light has been switched off, in order to allow the parasites to do what they please.
There is no doubt that any number of programs are good, and even the most wasteful, preposterous government programs help somebody. Insofar as roads are the means by which government ensures the access of its agents, as necessary, "to secure these rights," one can argue that roads, and many other aspects of infrastructure, are in fact at least partially a government job. In any event, whatever else the government does, must not violate its charter, namely the preservation of INALIENABLE (i.e. they may not be taken away!) rights. People's failure to save for their retirement, or obtain medical coverage, or form strong family and community bonds that have long served to preserve the dignity and lifestyles of the elderly do not give a Big Brother government a mandate to violate others' rights to provide those things.


Ah yes, when the cost of healthcare and education have, for decades, been rising faster than wages because of unchecked greed we just blame people who can't afford those things without government assistance by calling them lazy, even though many of them work harder than us. At least that way we can kick the can down the road for a few more years without having to face the actual underlying problems...

By all means, go ahead and go increase your income by 5% per year for the rest of your life, because that's the only way you'll keep up with costs unless the governments intervenes.
August 8, 2011 12:25:39 PM

Medicare is not broken? Really? Then explain why medicare(us) was charged $500 for a toilet plunger itemized as a physical therapy apparatus for my late Grandmother.

That lack of oversight is the reason costs are out of control. And folks like mystic and Gulli want more of it.

I don't get it.
August 8, 2011 12:34:20 PM

Medicare is not the causative reason health care costs in the United States are out of control. In your example, the scam artists are. They do the same to private healthcare too.

Which forces them all to spend overhead on oversight. And then the fraudsters get elected governor of Florida.

But you want to know Medicare's biggest problem? It's not a cause of the problem, but it is a flaw in the system due to a choice of priorities. They pay first, then check. Why do they do that? Because of the insistence that health care providers can't be made to wait for their checks, not even to see if it's valid. Pay then question is a bad policy. It's like hiring a contractor and paying them in cash. Should you be surprised when some don't show up to work?

I would love to have that policy changed. Why would you think I support a lack of oversight?

Just the opposite. I would change that policy easily. But a single-payer system or public health system would have even more oversight than the current method because it would pay to people who actually provided in a more consistent manner.

August 8, 2011 12:37:45 PM

No, if people were in charge of paying for themselves the market would take care of it because the scammers would be out of business.
August 8, 2011 12:40:41 PM

Gulli, that Government has failed to address the layers of greed now built into our health care system is another of its failings; but Health Care Reform is NOT about finding someone else to pay for it, it's about lowering costs. That's done by easing onerous regulatory requirements, capping damage awards and otherwise sharply limiting malpractice suits for other than willful wrongdoing or malicious intent. There IS such a thing as an "accident," even by trained professionals in the OR, and insofar as people are different and very complex, your results may vary, and be nowhere near as perfect as you hoped. At the very least, make best efforts to take the costs that aren't related to patient care out of medical bills.
The health care system here worked wonderfully throughout most of the 20th century. I am old enough to remember having a doctor who made house calls when I was a kid. What changed? Parasites latching onto it, that's what. "Personal injury" attorneys, insurance game playing, and unnecessary do-gooder oversight, all by people who want/need to get paid, even though they add nothing to patient care; they all vote (and some make big campaign contributions and/or otherwise grease the right palms), so Government is in no hurry to fix it.
August 8, 2011 12:50:08 PM

^^

That's quite optimistic. Especially in medicine, where I know of way too many people willing to go for all sorts of quackery, on promises and hope. And then there's the ones who simply are not in a condition to make decisions on their own. Who should manage that? What if the trust given in those cases are abused?

I'm afraid I must doubt your contention.

^

There's a reason why the reform act requires a minimum spent on actual health care, and not administration. But no, house calls were doomed, the required equipment and record-keeping, not to mention changes in social dynamics meant that wouldn't last.
!