Some free market ideas on health care ...
- Thread starter ViRedd
- Start date
ViRedd
New Member
Here's more ...
A Free Market for Health Care
[FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif]by [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif]Sheldon Richman[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif], June 1992[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Concerned about rising costs the number of Americans without medical insurance, nearly everyone is these days about a day goes by without a presidential or a magazine calling for something drastic to be done. Each advocate maintains that his plan will bring skyrocketing costs under control, make health care accessible to low-income people, and bring health insurance within the reach of the 34 million Americans who currently do without it.
But the American people are being handed a Hobson's choice between a government takeover of the medical insurance industry and mandatory provision of insurance by the nation's employers, with the government as insurer of last resort.
There is a real alternative solution that relies on competition in the open marketplace. That solution recognizes that the undesirable aspects of the current system are not the result of the free market, but rather are the outcome of decades of governmental intervention in the health-care industry. Elimination of that intervention would shift power and responsibility from impersonal bureaucracies to consumers. The resulting free market, characterized by prudent consumers spending their own money, would control costs and let the American people have the kind of medical care they want.
Those who call for greater governmental involvement are fond of comparing how much Americans spend on health care with how much is spent in other countries. For example, in 1989 the average American spent about 40 percent more on health care than his Canadian counterpart: $2,354 versus $1,683. The West Germans, French, Japanese, and Britons spent even less. The 12 percent of gross domestic product that the United States devoted to health care in 1991 ($650 billion) is double the portion so devoted in Great Britain. By the year 2000, total spending is expected to reach $1 trillion or 15 percent of gross domestic product. Costs are increasing at 15 percent a year, much more than the general rate of price increases. The cost of employer-provided medical insurance increased 21.6 percent from 1989 to 1990.
But these comparisons are misleading for many reasons. For example, the demographics of the countries are different. A younger population, such as Canada's, would be expected to spend less on medical care than an older population, such as that in the United States. Moreover, the United States is the richest country in the world, and more affluent societies tend to spend more on health care than less affluent ones. There are many other reasons why those cost comparisons are deceptive.
Nevertheless, we can say that Americans spend too much on health care in this sense: identifiable government interventions raise costs higher than they would otherwise be. They do that by artificially stimulating demand and artificially constricting supply.
On the demand side, the problem is simply this: The government pays for about half the health care purchased in this country, through the national health insurance for the poor and elderly known as Medicaid and Medicare. In 1990 ft state and federal governments spent $280 billion on health care. The costs of these programs have exploded over the years. Since Medicaid and Medicare patients pay little or nothing for health care, they demand more of it than they would otherwise. They have no need to shop for the best value or to be prudent about elective procedures.
All of this puts tremendous upward pressure on prices, harming everyone who pays for his own care. Until 1983, Medicaid and Medicare reimbursed health-care providers on a cost-plus basis, meaning that neither patients nor providers had incentives to keep costs down. This escalated prices, which, in turn, pushed up premiums for health insurance. The government-paperwork costs alone help raise the price of medical care for everyone. As a result, many people and small businesses are priced out of the insurance market. Mandated coverage by the states for such uninsurable things as hairpieces and in vitro fertilization aggravates that process.
On the supply side, various governmental regulations enacted at the behest of the medical profession have constricted the supply of doctors and other health-care professionals. Medical licensing and the power to accredit medical schools were explicitly motivated by the medical profession's wish to reduce competition and to increase the remaining practitioners' incomes. Between 1910 and 1920, when accreditation power was granted, the number of medical schools in the United States dropped from 131 to 85. The cut particularly harmed women and minorities; by 1944 the number of medical schools which predominantly admitted blacks fell from seven to two. Thanks to government, the medical industry is far less competitive than it would be if left free of interference.
Most of the proposed solutions, however, ignore the causes of the problem and would even aggravate the situation. The most popular approach, the one taken by many Democrats, as well as a coalition of Big Business and Big Labor, is known as "play or pay." Under this plan, the federal government would require all employers to provide health insurance to their workers or to pay a new payroll tax (over 7 percent), the revenue from which would provide insurance. The supporters of "play or pay" also favor regulations on insurance premiums and various methods of cost containment. Notice that this proposal would only make things worse. Government would insure even more people than now, and its control of costs — price controls — would bring all the distortions and bureaucratic rationing we experienced in the 1970s. Moreover, as the price of insurance continued to rise, the system would create incentives for small businesses to pay into the government fund, moving us closer to national health insurance. And when "play or pay" failed to improve the health-care system, the statists would inevitably say, "Private enterprise was given a chance and has failed; now it's time for the government to take over."
Some "reforms" go even further in the wrong direction and call for a Canadian-type system, which would make the government the sole health insurer in the land. But the results of the Canadian system are exactly what we would expect of government control. Bureaucratic planning has created shortages, rationing, and long lines for service. For example, Canada has 11 heart surgery facilities, one for every 2.3 million people. In the United States there are 793 facilities, one for every 300,000. The wait for a coronary-bypass operation can last from four months to a year in Canada. Bureaucratic strangulation has also prompted a significant number of doctors to emigrate or take early retirement. The system has failed to even control health-care costs; the growth in spending for Canada and the United States is almost the same. The Republicans offer no fundamental change in the current system, merely some crumbs to low-income people to buy insurance as well as a cap on malpractice awards. Medicaid and Medicare will continue to grow under President Bush's administration.
It should be obvious that if governments at all levels were not confiscating close to half of the people's wealth, medical care would be a manageable necessity of life. Without the onerous tax burden under which people now labor, they would be able to save for the medical expenses required during their working and retirement years. True, some people would not be able to provide for their own care — and they would have to rely on private charity. But the medical profession itself has always been generous in helping the indigent.
If the government did not dominate the health-care industry through its humongous "insurance" programs, costs would fall to the reasonable levels we would expect of a free market. That would enable even the lowest-income people to buy medical care and health insurance. (To the extent governmental tax policy distorts the private insurance industry, costs would fall even further.)
On the supply side, the repeal of medical licensing, governmental accreditation of medical schools, and restrictions on hospital construction would increase the amount of care available, lowering prices even more. This would expand individual liberty and introduce real competition into the medical marketplace. Quality assurance would be much better handled in the free market through private certification organizations, such as Underwriters Laboratory and Consumer Reports.
Governmental intervention is always dangerous. But nowhere is it more so than in the health-care industry. The sooner we get the government out, the sooner we can all breathe easier — and perhaps even live longer.
[/FONT]
A Free Market for Health Care
[FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif]by [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif]Sheldon Richman[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif], June 1992[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Concerned about rising costs the number of Americans without medical insurance, nearly everyone is these days about a day goes by without a presidential or a magazine calling for something drastic to be done. Each advocate maintains that his plan will bring skyrocketing costs under control, make health care accessible to low-income people, and bring health insurance within the reach of the 34 million Americans who currently do without it.
But the American people are being handed a Hobson's choice between a government takeover of the medical insurance industry and mandatory provision of insurance by the nation's employers, with the government as insurer of last resort.
There is a real alternative solution that relies on competition in the open marketplace. That solution recognizes that the undesirable aspects of the current system are not the result of the free market, but rather are the outcome of decades of governmental intervention in the health-care industry. Elimination of that intervention would shift power and responsibility from impersonal bureaucracies to consumers. The resulting free market, characterized by prudent consumers spending their own money, would control costs and let the American people have the kind of medical care they want.
Those who call for greater governmental involvement are fond of comparing how much Americans spend on health care with how much is spent in other countries. For example, in 1989 the average American spent about 40 percent more on health care than his Canadian counterpart: $2,354 versus $1,683. The West Germans, French, Japanese, and Britons spent even less. The 12 percent of gross domestic product that the United States devoted to health care in 1991 ($650 billion) is double the portion so devoted in Great Britain. By the year 2000, total spending is expected to reach $1 trillion or 15 percent of gross domestic product. Costs are increasing at 15 percent a year, much more than the general rate of price increases. The cost of employer-provided medical insurance increased 21.6 percent from 1989 to 1990.
But these comparisons are misleading for many reasons. For example, the demographics of the countries are different. A younger population, such as Canada's, would be expected to spend less on medical care than an older population, such as that in the United States. Moreover, the United States is the richest country in the world, and more affluent societies tend to spend more on health care than less affluent ones. There are many other reasons why those cost comparisons are deceptive.
Nevertheless, we can say that Americans spend too much on health care in this sense: identifiable government interventions raise costs higher than they would otherwise be. They do that by artificially stimulating demand and artificially constricting supply.
On the demand side, the problem is simply this: The government pays for about half the health care purchased in this country, through the national health insurance for the poor and elderly known as Medicaid and Medicare. In 1990 ft state and federal governments spent $280 billion on health care. The costs of these programs have exploded over the years. Since Medicaid and Medicare patients pay little or nothing for health care, they demand more of it than they would otherwise. They have no need to shop for the best value or to be prudent about elective procedures.
All of this puts tremendous upward pressure on prices, harming everyone who pays for his own care. Until 1983, Medicaid and Medicare reimbursed health-care providers on a cost-plus basis, meaning that neither patients nor providers had incentives to keep costs down. This escalated prices, which, in turn, pushed up premiums for health insurance. The government-paperwork costs alone help raise the price of medical care for everyone. As a result, many people and small businesses are priced out of the insurance market. Mandated coverage by the states for such uninsurable things as hairpieces and in vitro fertilization aggravates that process.
On the supply side, various governmental regulations enacted at the behest of the medical profession have constricted the supply of doctors and other health-care professionals. Medical licensing and the power to accredit medical schools were explicitly motivated by the medical profession's wish to reduce competition and to increase the remaining practitioners' incomes. Between 1910 and 1920, when accreditation power was granted, the number of medical schools in the United States dropped from 131 to 85. The cut particularly harmed women and minorities; by 1944 the number of medical schools which predominantly admitted blacks fell from seven to two. Thanks to government, the medical industry is far less competitive than it would be if left free of interference.
Most of the proposed solutions, however, ignore the causes of the problem and would even aggravate the situation. The most popular approach, the one taken by many Democrats, as well as a coalition of Big Business and Big Labor, is known as "play or pay." Under this plan, the federal government would require all employers to provide health insurance to their workers or to pay a new payroll tax (over 7 percent), the revenue from which would provide insurance. The supporters of "play or pay" also favor regulations on insurance premiums and various methods of cost containment. Notice that this proposal would only make things worse. Government would insure even more people than now, and its control of costs — price controls — would bring all the distortions and bureaucratic rationing we experienced in the 1970s. Moreover, as the price of insurance continued to rise, the system would create incentives for small businesses to pay into the government fund, moving us closer to national health insurance. And when "play or pay" failed to improve the health-care system, the statists would inevitably say, "Private enterprise was given a chance and has failed; now it's time for the government to take over."
Some "reforms" go even further in the wrong direction and call for a Canadian-type system, which would make the government the sole health insurer in the land. But the results of the Canadian system are exactly what we would expect of government control. Bureaucratic planning has created shortages, rationing, and long lines for service. For example, Canada has 11 heart surgery facilities, one for every 2.3 million people. In the United States there are 793 facilities, one for every 300,000. The wait for a coronary-bypass operation can last from four months to a year in Canada. Bureaucratic strangulation has also prompted a significant number of doctors to emigrate or take early retirement. The system has failed to even control health-care costs; the growth in spending for Canada and the United States is almost the same. The Republicans offer no fundamental change in the current system, merely some crumbs to low-income people to buy insurance as well as a cap on malpractice awards. Medicaid and Medicare will continue to grow under President Bush's administration.
It should be obvious that if governments at all levels were not confiscating close to half of the people's wealth, medical care would be a manageable necessity of life. Without the onerous tax burden under which people now labor, they would be able to save for the medical expenses required during their working and retirement years. True, some people would not be able to provide for their own care — and they would have to rely on private charity. But the medical profession itself has always been generous in helping the indigent.
If the government did not dominate the health-care industry through its humongous "insurance" programs, costs would fall to the reasonable levels we would expect of a free market. That would enable even the lowest-income people to buy medical care and health insurance. (To the extent governmental tax policy distorts the private insurance industry, costs would fall even further.)
On the supply side, the repeal of medical licensing, governmental accreditation of medical schools, and restrictions on hospital construction would increase the amount of care available, lowering prices even more. This would expand individual liberty and introduce real competition into the medical marketplace. Quality assurance would be much better handled in the free market through private certification organizations, such as Underwriters Laboratory and Consumer Reports.
Governmental intervention is always dangerous. But nowhere is it more so than in the health-care industry. The sooner we get the government out, the sooner we can all breathe easier — and perhaps even live longer.
[/FONT]
ViRedd
New Member
And even more ...
Health-Care Socialism
[FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif]by [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif]Scott McPherson[/FONT], [FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif]June 2003[/FONT]
Some ideas die hard. Among the most resilient is the utopian belief that health care could be cheap, free, and available to all, if only we’d let the government take care of it. It was in the spirit of reviving this tragically unwise socialist idea that former president Bill Clinton and Sen. John Breaux (D-La.) addressed separate audiences last February on the need for greater government control over medicine.
Hoping to add greater impetus to the health-care issue for the 2004 presidential election, Clinton told the 2003 National Grassroots Meeting of Families USA, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., that Americans should “try to find a bipartisan solution” to the nation’s health-care woes, preferably one involving greater government management. He also lamented his unsuccessful attempt to socialize America’s health-care industry, describing it as a noble act that was “demonized” by his opponents.
On the other side of town, Senator Breaux was making his call for the socialization of medicine in a speech before the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Outlining his own proposal for total medical socialism in this country — “an idea he says he wants to be discussed by all 2004 presidential candidates,” reports the Washington Times — he said he believed his plan will “put America back on the right path towards an America where everyone has health insurance and quality health care.”
Some ideas do indeed die hard. For the greater part of the last half century, a number of our more “enlightened” — that is, more socialist-minded — neighbors, such as Canada and the European nations, have nationalized their medical industries and ever since have been struggling to live up to their promise of “health insurance and quality health care” for all. Huge waiting lists for care and visitations with specialists, a lack of sophisticated medical equipment, rising costs (which must be met by rising taxes), and a general increase in dissatisfaction with government-run health care are typical in all countries where the government, literally, calls the shots.
The first error of those who promote “national health care” is their complete inability to accept that nothing in life is certain. Just because a law is passed guaranteeing “quality medical care for all” doesn’t mean it will happen — though this is certainly a heretical view in today’s climate of government worship. No matter how much they may want it, leftists will have to accept that regardless of the system in place, someone, somewhere, will go without the care he needs. Conventional “wisdom” has maintained that at least under a government system more people will have care than otherwise. But after 50 years of experimentation, the jury is in: Socialized medicine simply cannot deliver the goods.
Free-market health care
So the only question is, what system has shown itself capable of best distributing the greatest amount of any good or service to the greatest number of people, at the highest quality and lowest price? The answer is the free market. Medical care is no different from any other commodity. In order to be most efficiently and widely distributed, it requires the unfettered signals of supply and demand, lest it fall victim to socialism’s standard shortcomings: bureaucratization, rationing, rising costs, overproduction (in some areas), underproduction (in others), and eventual failure.
Perhaps that is what’s at the root of leftists’ continued belief in the state — they refuse to accept that regardless of how passionately they feel about everyone’s need to be covered against medical emergency, reality requires that the proper distribution of goods and services be through a peaceful, voluntary — that is, free — market. Like it or not, medical care is a market good. And we ignore the market’s winds at our peril. The Soviet Union proved the long-run impossibility of socialism, yet it is just this kind of command-and-control mentality which the former president, Senator Breaux, and a whole host of other like-minded American socialists would like to bring to the health-care debate.
Sadly, there isn’t much hope for a spirited, practical, principled counterargument to the highly popular notion of government intervention in the health-care market. Asked to comment on the issue, even Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) — touted as a hardcore conservative by the media and leftists in general — said he doesn’t think that Congress “is ready for any universal health-care proposal, nor do I believe the country is.” [Emphasis added.]
That is politician-speak, meaning that after a few more years of rising costs, rationing, bureaucratization, and continual failure in the health-care industry — brought on by continued government interference in the health-care market in the form of regulations, licensing, mandates, price controls, Medicare, Medicaid, prescription-drug coverage, and a whole host of other government-imposed “solutions” — then the country, and Congress, will be “ready for a universal health-care proposal.”
America doesn’t need a “bipartisan” approach to our health-care worries. The mess we’re in is a direct result of bipartisan compromises on the issue of medical freedom. It is the responsibility of each and every American to provide for his own medical needs, by contracting for such services on the free and open market. The only effective role Congress or the president can play in any debate about health care is to accept that socialized medicine, in every form, is a failure and to restore freedom to the health-care market.
Scott McPherson is a policy advisor at The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.
Health-Care Socialism
[FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif]by [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif]Scott McPherson[/FONT], [FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif]June 2003[/FONT]
Some ideas die hard. Among the most resilient is the utopian belief that health care could be cheap, free, and available to all, if only we’d let the government take care of it. It was in the spirit of reviving this tragically unwise socialist idea that former president Bill Clinton and Sen. John Breaux (D-La.) addressed separate audiences last February on the need for greater government control over medicine.
Hoping to add greater impetus to the health-care issue for the 2004 presidential election, Clinton told the 2003 National Grassroots Meeting of Families USA, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., that Americans should “try to find a bipartisan solution” to the nation’s health-care woes, preferably one involving greater government management. He also lamented his unsuccessful attempt to socialize America’s health-care industry, describing it as a noble act that was “demonized” by his opponents.
On the other side of town, Senator Breaux was making his call for the socialization of medicine in a speech before the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Outlining his own proposal for total medical socialism in this country — “an idea he says he wants to be discussed by all 2004 presidential candidates,” reports the Washington Times — he said he believed his plan will “put America back on the right path towards an America where everyone has health insurance and quality health care.”
Some ideas do indeed die hard. For the greater part of the last half century, a number of our more “enlightened” — that is, more socialist-minded — neighbors, such as Canada and the European nations, have nationalized their medical industries and ever since have been struggling to live up to their promise of “health insurance and quality health care” for all. Huge waiting lists for care and visitations with specialists, a lack of sophisticated medical equipment, rising costs (which must be met by rising taxes), and a general increase in dissatisfaction with government-run health care are typical in all countries where the government, literally, calls the shots.
The first error of those who promote “national health care” is their complete inability to accept that nothing in life is certain. Just because a law is passed guaranteeing “quality medical care for all” doesn’t mean it will happen — though this is certainly a heretical view in today’s climate of government worship. No matter how much they may want it, leftists will have to accept that regardless of the system in place, someone, somewhere, will go without the care he needs. Conventional “wisdom” has maintained that at least under a government system more people will have care than otherwise. But after 50 years of experimentation, the jury is in: Socialized medicine simply cannot deliver the goods.
Free-market health care
So the only question is, what system has shown itself capable of best distributing the greatest amount of any good or service to the greatest number of people, at the highest quality and lowest price? The answer is the free market. Medical care is no different from any other commodity. In order to be most efficiently and widely distributed, it requires the unfettered signals of supply and demand, lest it fall victim to socialism’s standard shortcomings: bureaucratization, rationing, rising costs, overproduction (in some areas), underproduction (in others), and eventual failure.
Perhaps that is what’s at the root of leftists’ continued belief in the state — they refuse to accept that regardless of how passionately they feel about everyone’s need to be covered against medical emergency, reality requires that the proper distribution of goods and services be through a peaceful, voluntary — that is, free — market. Like it or not, medical care is a market good. And we ignore the market’s winds at our peril. The Soviet Union proved the long-run impossibility of socialism, yet it is just this kind of command-and-control mentality which the former president, Senator Breaux, and a whole host of other like-minded American socialists would like to bring to the health-care debate.
Sadly, there isn’t much hope for a spirited, practical, principled counterargument to the highly popular notion of government intervention in the health-care market. Asked to comment on the issue, even Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) — touted as a hardcore conservative by the media and leftists in general — said he doesn’t think that Congress “is ready for any universal health-care proposal, nor do I believe the country is.” [Emphasis added.]
That is politician-speak, meaning that after a few more years of rising costs, rationing, bureaucratization, and continual failure in the health-care industry — brought on by continued government interference in the health-care market in the form of regulations, licensing, mandates, price controls, Medicare, Medicaid, prescription-drug coverage, and a whole host of other government-imposed “solutions” — then the country, and Congress, will be “ready for a universal health-care proposal.”
America doesn’t need a “bipartisan” approach to our health-care worries. The mess we’re in is a direct result of bipartisan compromises on the issue of medical freedom. It is the responsibility of each and every American to provide for his own medical needs, by contracting for such services on the free and open market. The only effective role Congress or the president can play in any debate about health care is to accept that socialized medicine, in every form, is a failure and to restore freedom to the health-care market.
Scott McPherson is a policy advisor at The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
Old News Vi.
The difference between Europe (and the Heritage Foundation Omits this) and the United States is that the United States has Positive population growth, and Europe has negative population growth.
With a Negative population growth there is not enough people to pay into the system and thus the system eventually can not sustain itself.
Where as the United States has positive population growth and always has more people coming into the employment market that being said, More people to pay into the system, thus it can sustain itself.
Also something that the Europeans did long ago (with your free market economy with out protections) is allowed most of the Jobs to be outsourced. This is the reason why they have such high unemployment figures..
If we put protections into out laws to protect American jobs then there is also another plus for a Universal Healthcare.
I saw the same program Saturday that you did Vi.
The difference between Europe (and the Heritage Foundation Omits this) and the United States is that the United States has Positive population growth, and Europe has negative population growth.
With a Negative population growth there is not enough people to pay into the system and thus the system eventually can not sustain itself.
Where as the United States has positive population growth and always has more people coming into the employment market that being said, More people to pay into the system, thus it can sustain itself.
Also something that the Europeans did long ago (with your free market economy with out protections) is allowed most of the Jobs to be outsourced. This is the reason why they have such high unemployment figures..
If we put protections into out laws to protect American jobs then there is also another plus for a Universal Healthcare.
I saw the same program Saturday that you did Vi.
ViRedd
New Member
Dank ...
I don't want to get off topic in this thread, but I'll respond to this:
"Also something that the Europeans did long ago (with your free market economy with out protections) is allowed most of the Jobs to be outsourced. This is the reason why they have such high unemployment figures."
The reason Europe has such a high unemployment rate is NOT because of outsourcing. It is because of onerous, socialist regulations against employers. Take France for example: Once hired, employees are almost impossible to fire. Therefore, hiring the young and inexperienced is a non-starter.
Now back to the topic at hand ...
Vi
I don't want to get off topic in this thread, but I'll respond to this:
"Also something that the Europeans did long ago (with your free market economy with out protections) is allowed most of the Jobs to be outsourced. This is the reason why they have such high unemployment figures."
The reason Europe has such a high unemployment rate is NOT because of outsourcing. It is because of onerous, socialist regulations against employers. Take France for example: Once hired, employees are almost impossible to fire. Therefore, hiring the young and inexperienced is a non-starter.
Now back to the topic at hand ...
Vi
medicineman
New Member
One word-Bogus! This is opinion only. And it's opinion by people whom would benefit from this free market baloney. I'll never live long enough to see the corporations volunteering to pay indigent health care, and neither will anyone else! How can an already cash starved family afford even the cheapest of health care insurance on minimum wages, the answer is they can't! The mess we are in is a direct result of the greed of the medical industry. If HMOs and Insurance companies did not pay their CEOs hundred million dollar salarys, maybe they could reduce the costs and people could afford insurance, but they do pay those exhorbitant salarys and reap huge profits for their stockholders as in "fuck the people"! To eliminate the med. ins. co.s and the HMOs would put billions back into the economy, billions with which to institute a real medical program where treatment for all would be "fair and Balanced". So dream on about the corporations, the same ones cutting jobs and paying million dollar salaries to top management, paying for health care for anyone, let alone the indigent! That is pure folly!!
medicineman
New Member
kanabis
Well-Known Member
I wonder if it is better to be an educated fool or an uneducated fool. In both case you're a fool, however it is probable the uneducated has no clue is a fool too. Life is good!
kanabis
Well-Known Member
Vred, I d' like to know where you got your stats! have you ever lived or worked in Europe? do you understand how the CEE works? are you sure Europe is outsourcing is work force? here in the U.S, every time you call a 1-800, some guy with a turban on his head living in India is talking half english and doesn't give a shit about who you are or what you want. The only ones you see working in restaurant, supermarket, gas stations, etc... are ... ? often illegals. Whatever you buy has to be made in China and you like it because it is cheaper. Wall-mart and Costco are the ultimate shopping places no matter the origin of the products. Excuse me. if there is a country that outsource his jobs, guess who it is? There is no proud anymore and everybody is for sale, nobody cares ...
Regarding unemployment ratio, the way Europeans manage their numbers is different than here and we can't compare the stats. Are you aware of what are the requisites in Europe to qualify for unemployment or subsidiary? probably not. One thing is sure, there are more homeless in the number one America than in Europe and nobody has a credit card maxed out with $100k or nobody was to mortgage his life to pay his medical bills, it just doesn't work that way. And this, thanks to so called "leftist" trend where people have the "cojones" to go in the street and burn cars.
Now, talking about population growth, don't believe whatever they say on TV, who says they are here to tell the truth? The ratio in Europe is far to be negative but represent in general about 50% less than the U.S., except for Ireland where it is even higher than in U.S. However, many factors influence the growth of a population such as religion, financial status and lifestyle. Most important, understand that only Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, New York and Rode Island are pro abortion on request, another 16 states including California will consider abortion under certain circumstances and 30 states are against it. In Europe, abortion is legal since almost 3 decades, Ireland and Malta are the only one where it is somehow restricted. It is then evident there is a very tight relation between the growth of the population and the abortion legislation in place.
It is true, all Europe have established laws that ultra protect the employee and small businesses can't make it. But let me tell you that here in California, we are not that far, the labor board is even worse and you expose yourself to extortion when hiring anybody. Due to a lack of regulation in some aspect of the law, it is a nonsense circus that would make smile the Spanish inquisitors. And no matter what, we already pay the money, work comps are ridiculously expensive and do not cover a third of the future FHC.
Nobody within a healthy state of mind can say FHC is a bad idea unless he has another agenda than the safety of The People. Now, I agree that this bad news for the health and the pharmaco industry and will put a dent into the budget but I rather spend money to bring health than to bring death, if you see what I mean.
In order to see if free health care is good or bad, it's easy ... get a pen, a paper and calculate what would be your actual cost. Then, compare it to the thousands of dollar you spend with your actual private insurance which are a total joke, and don't forget to include all your medical bills if you were unlucky to get sick. I forgot, free health care consider the entire house hold, so update the numbers.
So the bottom line, whether it is a socialist initiative or not and as long it will beneficiate millions of people who can't afford health in the actuality, let it be! A society should distinct itself by the good it can bring to its own and this is definitely a good thing.
Regarding unemployment ratio, the way Europeans manage their numbers is different than here and we can't compare the stats. Are you aware of what are the requisites in Europe to qualify for unemployment or subsidiary? probably not. One thing is sure, there are more homeless in the number one America than in Europe and nobody has a credit card maxed out with $100k or nobody was to mortgage his life to pay his medical bills, it just doesn't work that way. And this, thanks to so called "leftist" trend where people have the "cojones" to go in the street and burn cars.
Now, talking about population growth, don't believe whatever they say on TV, who says they are here to tell the truth? The ratio in Europe is far to be negative but represent in general about 50% less than the U.S., except for Ireland where it is even higher than in U.S. However, many factors influence the growth of a population such as religion, financial status and lifestyle. Most important, understand that only Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, New York and Rode Island are pro abortion on request, another 16 states including California will consider abortion under certain circumstances and 30 states are against it. In Europe, abortion is legal since almost 3 decades, Ireland and Malta are the only one where it is somehow restricted. It is then evident there is a very tight relation between the growth of the population and the abortion legislation in place.
It is true, all Europe have established laws that ultra protect the employee and small businesses can't make it. But let me tell you that here in California, we are not that far, the labor board is even worse and you expose yourself to extortion when hiring anybody. Due to a lack of regulation in some aspect of the law, it is a nonsense circus that would make smile the Spanish inquisitors. And no matter what, we already pay the money, work comps are ridiculously expensive and do not cover a third of the future FHC.
Nobody within a healthy state of mind can say FHC is a bad idea unless he has another agenda than the safety of The People. Now, I agree that this bad news for the health and the pharmaco industry and will put a dent into the budget but I rather spend money to bring health than to bring death, if you see what I mean.
In order to see if free health care is good or bad, it's easy ... get a pen, a paper and calculate what would be your actual cost. Then, compare it to the thousands of dollar you spend with your actual private insurance which are a total joke, and don't forget to include all your medical bills if you were unlucky to get sick. I forgot, free health care consider the entire house hold, so update the numbers.
So the bottom line, whether it is a socialist initiative or not and as long it will beneficiate millions of people who can't afford health in the actuality, let it be! A society should distinct itself by the good it can bring to its own and this is definitely a good thing.
Whether the people want it or not and at what cost. I guess that doesn't matter.
