(02-04-2018 02:56 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-24-2018 08:13 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 10:53 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 10:14 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I am a big supporter of infrastructure projects as part of gov't policy. Obama's presidency would have been seen more favorably by all if he would have focused much more efforts on developing and delivering on huge infrastructure projects as stimulus instead of bailing out municipal gov'ts and working on healthcare.

IMHO, the building of the interstate system was probably the greatest accomplishment of the 20th century for economic benefit. Without it, the mobility we gained from the invention of the car and truck would be not nearly as great. The commerce gains from transportation was huge. To this day, we are still benefiting greatly.

Whether people like them or not, Walmart's success in large part is related to the interstate system. Amazon wouldn't be viable but for the transportation infrastructure.

While I'm not one of those who buys the idea that health insurance is an unenumerated 9th Amendment right, I do think we should look at it as an infrastructure issue.

Health costs inflate the cost of property and casualty insurance, workers comp, malpractice (since part of the claim is for corrective treatment), as well as inflating labor costs.

I fail to see how health insurance can be equated to an infrastructure project. If you're going for an analogy, the interstate highway system is more like people than health insurance. The interstates allow for the creation of wealth thru commerce. People allow for the creation of wealth thru labor and innovation. Healthcare insurance is more like a contract bid to maintain the interstates. Actual healthcare is like the maintenance departments maintaining the interstate systems.

Healthcare and road maintenance does not create wealth in an economic sense. Both activities are designed to preserve what already exists primarily, and in some cases provide incremental improvements. Road maintenance is an operational necessity though. If you want to argue that healthcare should be viewed as an operational necessity, then a compelling case could be made.

XACLY! healthcare to the urbanites relative to country is meaningless in scope other than a subsidized burden...

maintaining our infrastructure is critical mass relative to everything relative to the USD....

pick your poison......I choose investing in funding the I-xx system every single day and the eighth one.....

#IKE

Building roads for urbanites was not a significant development. They had already seen them built and toll roads in corridors between urban areas were the norm, there was more than adequate consumer demand to get toll roads built, many purely private. Most urban areas were more than adequately served by rail that often was built without government subsidy. Many urban areas were more than adequately served by private development of ports along the oceans, rivers, canals and the Great Lakes.

Government subsidized long rail lines, government subsidized making previously non-navigable waters navigable, subsidized ports and canals into areas where there was no sufficient consumer demand. Government subsidized highway building.

Electricity was not a concern for urban populations. The demand and high population density made it easy to privately develop electric grids in urban areas. It was rural America that need subsidies to become electrified and make it possible to upgrade manufacturing.

All those government subsidizations cut overhead. Goods moved faster and more cheaply and opened up new labor markets.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the average American employer spent 7.5% of labor costs on health insurance not including workers compensation health benefits. That also fails to account for the business owners higher property and casualty insurance costs related to having to provide medical coverage as a part of those costs.

Cutting transportation costs, providing reliable energy at below free market cost by covering the costs of some generation of electricity and installing grid all had a positive impact on the US economy but there is some magical reason that cutting the cost of labor by reducing medical outlays won't be positive for the economy? Making US labor costs more competitive on a national stage is a bad thing?