Schiff Coining It

[AvidFan]

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/277433

Peter Schiff Money-Bomb Raises Extra $350,000

Schiff for president!

[AvidFan]

Mind you, he's getting slaughtered in that health reform debate isn't he?

[AvidFan]

Look at the youtube comments that pop up at the end. Someone reckons that video was a set-up.

If he keeps falling for that, his political career will be over before it has begun.

[Jack's Creation]

For all his admirable Cassandra economic qualities (and his well written book) if you listen to a few of his podcast's, you soon come to the conclusion that on a personal level, the man is a bit of a dick.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Jack's Creation

[chris25]

Look at the youtube comments that pop up at the end. Someone reckons that video was a set-up.

If he keeps falling for that, his political career will be over before it has begun.

What the heck? he handled that impeccably. He was verbally bombarded and came out the top man.

[libspero]

Look at the youtube comments that pop up at the end. Someone reckons that video was a set-up.

Peter Schiff is an excellent debater amongst his other qualities.

History has shown repeatedly that almost anyone who goes into an interview expecting take him down a peg, instead ends up looking the fool.

For me that interview was no exception.. it just made the presenter look aggressive and unskilled.

[AvidFan]

What the heck? he handled that impeccably. He was verbally bombarded and came out the top man.

I don't believe government subsidies for healthcare and education are responsible for their ridiculous costs in the US. I genuinely think those two are current purely capitalist bubbles - businesses with strangleholds on the nation. So on this occasion I don't think he's right. Yes, we have GPs paid 380K but our overall socialist healthcare costs us 9% of GDP - the US costs 15% of GDP and rising. That's a greed bubble, not a socialist one.

[Take Me Back To London!]

For all his admirable Cassandra economic qualities (and his well written book) if you listen to a few of his podcast's, you soon come to the conclusion that on a personal level, the man is a bit of a dick.

Linkies please.

He's no dick on this podcast.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Take Me Back To London!

[Cogs]

I don't believe government subsidies for healthcare and education are responsible for their ridiculous costs in the US. I genuinely think those two are current purely capitalist bubbles - businesses with strangleholds on the nation. So on this occasion I don't think he's right. Yes, we have GPs paid 380K but our overall socialist healthcare costs us 9% of GDP - the US costs 15% of GDP and rising. That's a greed bubble, not a socialist one.

Its the "rising" part that is the real killer.

Their projections for an aging population are disproportionately high, I wish I could find the paper, it compares the UK, Japan, some European countries and the USA. Ours and Japan's rises are relatively constrained, the US shoots up into low orbit (20-something percent of GDP).

[AvidFan]

Linkies please.

He's no dick on this podcast.

I think on economics he's on solid ground and he knows his stuff - very sure footed. But against slimey, bullying politicians? I don't think he stands a chance.

[libspero]

Linkies please.

This is the one we are talking about

LINKY

[punter]

I don't believe government subsidies for healthcare and education are responsible for their ridiculous costs in the US. I genuinely think those two are current purely capitalist bubbles - businesses with strangleholds on the nation. So on this occasion I don't think he's right. Yes, we have GPs paid 380K but our overall socialist healthcare costs us 9% of GDP - the US costs 15% of GDP and rising. That's a greed bubble, not a socialist one.

your comparing a socialised system to a private system. Americans choose to spend more of their own money on healthcare when given the choice, in the UK you get what your given which is naturally constained by the fact that the government can never raise enough tax and there are a number of competing priorities, the taxes are high so people don't have enough money to spend more and submit to the NHS in the belief that it will take care of them when infact it will deny them drugs and treatment and put them on waiting lists... nevermind eh..

Also in America they have medicare for 65+ year olds which is a government program and also they treat illegal immigrants in A/E departments and another problem is that they have state health insurance monopolies, so government involvement , demand and regulations pushes up the medical costs as it does here

Edited August 12, 2009 by punter

[Cogs]

your comparing a socialised system to a private system. Americans choose to spend more of their own money on healthcare when given the choice, in the UK you get what your given which is naturally constained by the fact that the government can never raise enough tax and there are a number of competing priorities, the taxes are high so people don't have enough money to spend more and submit to the NHS in the belief that it will take care of them when infact it will deny them drugs and treatment and put them on waiting lists... nevermind eh..

The US government accounts for 8.X% of GDP in health spending.

Nearly 50 million people without insurance for at least part of last year.

The UK government accounts for 9% of GDP in health spending.

So I don't think that argument really works out. The US system is massively wasteful and inefficient.

And Medicare will bankrupt them if they have to pay for their aging population bubble at full market rates.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Cogs

[Take Me Back To London!]

Peter Schiff has got an updated version of his book - Crash Proof, which is out at the end of next month in the UK.

[King Stromba]

An interview without a guest. Maybe it will catch on?

[Cogs]

And here we are, this isn't the study I was thinking of but all the ones I've seen point in the same direction.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st286

I'd add that for a non-partisan group they are ridiculously right-wing in their biases, their agenda such as it is would be that the Bush administration(!) was being too generous in its medical spending. So if the books are being cooked, it isn't by sandal wearing tofu-eating liberals. 10 trillion dollar unfunded liability.

Look in particular at Table V on page 4. Thats why we have to hold our nerve on the NHS.

Go with what is sensible, let the theorists worry about it afterwards.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Cogs

[AvidFan]

your comparing a socialised system to a private system. Americans choose to spend more of their own money on healthcare when given the choice, in the UK you get what your given which is naturally constained by the fact that the government can never raise enough tax and there are a number of competing priorities, the taxes are high so people don't have enough money to spend more and submit to the NHS in the belief that it will take care of them when infact it will deny them drugs and treatment and put them on waiting lists... nevermind eh..

Also in America they have medicare for 65+ year olds which is a government program and also they treat illegal immigrants in A/E departments and another problem is that they have state health insurance monopolies, so government involvement , demand and regulations pushes up the medical costs as it does here

I wasn't advocating socialised medicine over private, merely pointing out they both have flaws and to say the US system is flawed because of government subsidies is wrong.

However, looking at a post on this thread, if 8% of GDP government spending on healthcare is true and that's in addition to private healthcare, then Schiff probably has something there. You are either for private medicine or socialised medicine, but not both together surely? If this is right, Schiff saying cut the 8% government subsidy, give everyone a 5-10% tax cut and let everyone pay for their own do-everything health insurance policy, may be the right thing to do.

[AvidFan]

I still think American's are missing the point though - socialised medicine has some capitalist elements to it - economies of scale for one, diversity and pooled risk (not everyone is ill at the same time) is another.

If you can work out how to eliminate poor management and waste in a socialised medical system, then you're probably onto something too.

[AvidFan]

I still think American's are missing the point though - socialised medicine has some capitalist elements to it - economies of scale for one, diversity and pooled risk (not everyone is ill at the same time) is another.

If you can work out how to eliminate poor management and waste in a socialised medical system, then you're probably onto something too.

[Errol]

Peter Schiff has got an updated version of his book - Crash Proof, which is out at the end of next month in the UK.

Just like to add that I'm just reading 'Crash Proof 2.0' now and it's just brilliant. Some stunningly accurate writing even if he is preaching to the converted. I would say that this is required reading and more relevant now than ever. As Schiff says we still not really had the crash yet. It's only just begun.

The hard backed copy is available from Amazon.co.uk for just over £10!

[Si1]

I wasn't advocating socialised medicine over private, merely pointing out they both have flaws and to say the US system is flawed because of government subsidies is wrong.

However, looking at a post on this thread, if 8% of GDP government spending on healthcare is true and that's in addition to private healthcare, then Schiff probably has something there. You are either for private medicine or socialised medicine, but not both together surely? If this is right, Schiff saying cut the 8% government subsidy, give everyone a 5-10% tax cut and let everyone pay for their own do-everything health insurance policy, may be the right thing to do.

does strike me - again going f Schiff's analysis off his broadcats over the past year - that the US system is far from ideal, not only with inappropriate govt spend, but also cartel-like large corporation activity.

I for one guess that a good socialised system OR a good private system will always beat a bad version of either

[bpw]

This whole thread seems to have contributions from people with no experience of the health insurance companies in the USA. The high cost of care in the USA is not caused by government subsidy, its expensive because doctors and nurses, drugs and real estate are all expensive. I know a midwife here earning US100k, and spoke with a 46 year old surgeon who was able to retire. He earned more than 1 million dollars a year and his doctor wife was grossing around 400k. They both agreed their pay was excessive and neither was a business owner or entrepreneur. All they had to do was graduate and join the gravy train. You have to live here in the US, and not work for a corporation, to appreciate how lucky you are to have national health care in the UK and EU. OK the hospitals look tired and you are treated in wards, however, single rooms and spanky hospitals are comforts that matter little when your having a tumor cut out or a hip replaced. The fact that 50 million americans are not covered by health insurance should shock you all. Thats the nearly the UK population! As for the pure xenophobic garbage about illegal immigrants - there is a simple truth. Those illegals are paid slave wages to toil on farms and in factories making it easy for the rest of america to sit on its increasingly fat obese arses. The right wing loathing of 'illegals' is ironic in the extreme.The recent press forced me to realise how efficient the NHS is - care costs 8% of GDP vs. 15% in the USA. Just imagine if we voted to double costs by say co-payment. The NHS would be able to serve restaurant food and bed you all in single rooms..... the question is do you want to pay for it.BTW - 40 something family here paying about $10,000 pa for insurance - like to rise to 20,000 in our 50s. WHAT are you paying????????

I wasn't advocating socialised medicine over private, merely pointing out they both have flaws and to say the US system is flawed because of government subsidies is wrong.

However, looking at a post on this thread, if 8% of GDP government spending on healthcare is true and that's in addition to private healthcare, then Schiff probably has something there.  You are either for private medicine or socialised medicine, but not both together surely?  If this is right, Schiff saying cut the 8% government subsidy, give everyone a 5-10% tax cut and let everyone pay for their own do-everything health insurance policy, may be the right thing to do.

[Si1]

This whole thread seems to have contributions from people with no experience of the health insurance companies in the USA. The high cost of care in the USA is not caused by government subsidy, its expensive because doctors and nurses, drugs and real estate are all expensive. I know a midwife here earning US100k, and spoke with a 46 year old surgeon who was able to retire. He earned more than 1 million dollars a year and his doctor wife was grossing around 400k. They both agreed their pay was excessive and neither was a business owner or entrepreneur. All they had to do was graduate and join the gravy train. You have to live here in the US, and not work for a corporation, to appreciate how lucky you are to have national health care in the UK and EU. OK the hospitals look tired and you are treated in wards, however, single rooms and spanky hospitals are comforts that matter little when your having a tumor cut out or a hip replaced. The fact that 50 million americans are not covered by health insurance should shock you all. Thats the nearly the UK population! As for the pure xenophobic garbage about illegal immigrants - there is a simple truth. Those illegals are paid slave wages to toil on farms and in factories making it easy for the rest of america to sit on its increasingly fat obese arses. The right wing loathing of 'illegals' is ironic in the extreme.The recent press forced me to realise how efficient the NHS is - care costs 8% of GDP vs. 15% in the USA. Just imagine if we voted to double costs by say co-payment. The NHS would be able to serve restaurant food and bed you all in single rooms..... the question is do you want to pay for it.BTW - 40 something family here paying about $10,000 pa for insurance - like to rise to 20,000 in our 50s. WHAT are you paying????????

I have heard Schiff being critical of the current american system based on corporatist behaviour maximising charges - he argues that private healthcare was much more efficient and cheap in the US in the 60s and 70s

[scepticus]

I've spent quite a bit of time on amercian boards. Half of them wish they had european healthcare. The other half would accept lower standards as long as the state is not involved on principle.

The US has on average a good standard of healthcare (as long as your not one of the unfortunate outsiders). However they pay far more for it at an aggregate economic leevl than we do in europe. Far more.

The only real beneficiares are insurance companies.

[Traktion]

He's not mincing his words still either: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjbgdg2_7XI&feature=browch