I know this might read as very woe-is-us, but these are the facts: Nearly 14 percent of college graduates from the classes of 2006 through 2010 can’t find full-time work, and overall just 55.3 percent of people ages 16 to 29 have jobs.Hmm, it's good to see this statistic out there. I've seen the "the unemployment rate for the college educated is 4%" or whatever bandied about on metafilter, but that's only for people over the age of 25, not the 22-25 year olds who just graduated into the recession, and you don't get the rate for people 25, 26, 27 broken out.
1. Countries A,E, and G are in crisis,Meanwhile, Italy's problems have to do with the raising of interest rates due to the way the ECB is dealing with eurocrisis. Spain's problems have nothing to do with government expenditures (the government was in the black), but rather the aftermath of private-sector bubble burst and the inability to adjust their currency. Greece's problems have more to do with poor tax-collecting ability coupled with a peculiar form of income distribution in the government sector than actual services delivered to citizens.
2. Countries A,E, and G have social safety nets,
3. I'm not going to say that first causes the second, but I will arrange this carefully selected list of countries and note that it is suspiciously meaningful that these #1 and #2 are correlated.
1. That creating robust social safety nets is the solution to not having safety nets,Lets look at that last point.
2. Social safety nets are not the causes of the downturn in any country affected by the current crisis,
3. A medicare-for-all system would spend less in health care (with better outcomes)
A 2003 study in The New England Journal of Medicine found that the United States spends 345 percent more per capita on health administration than our neighbors up north. This is largely because the Canadian system doesn’t have to employ insurance salespeople, or billing specialists in every doctor’s office, or underwriters. Physicians don’t have to negotiate different prices with dozens of insurance plans or fight with insurers for payment. Instead, they simply bill the government and are reimbursed. (via)I guess my question is, what are the criteria, exactly, to meet your standard for "credible numbers"? It seems to me that the research is roundly on the side of single-payer systems being more efficient.
At the beginning of each year, providers decided whether they will do business with Medicare. In other words, they choose whether or not to accept public insurance like Medicare or Medicaid. Almost all of them choose to do so, because providing health services to Medicare patients is actually a very profitable business (Medicaid patients, less so). But you can go here for a list of "participating" physicians. And for all the talk of underpayment, these providers don't participate because the law says they have to. It doesn't. They can refuse to participate in Medicare just as they can refuse to participate in Aetna. But by and large, they don't refuse, because it's good business to work with Medicare. (via)posted by Hypnotic Chick at 10:14 AM on October 18, 2011
« Older Amazon.com has taught readers that they do not nee... | Playboy just released 10 years... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Waitaminutehere. I thought they said that about my generation (class of 90).
The young persons in these slides reflect an extremely random sample of twentysomethings affected by the economy, skewed heavily toward college attendees and acquaintances of New York staffers.
Now that just makes no sense (unless it was a subtle joke).
posted by sourwookie at 9:28 PM on October 17, 2011 [4 favorites]