We had to drop full medical for our employees. The premiums were rising at an unbelievable rate(over 10% a year the last few years).
I'm guessing that one fifth of the US population is currently uninsured . That's a pretty big number that will continue to grow in the next few years. What do you expect when denying care takes priority over giving care? The best in the world means nothing when we can't even give basic care to the ones who need it the most.
I think you are confusing issues here. The issue you speak of is related to the medical insurance industry. I agree that the insurance industry in general needs to be revamped although to do so would also require a change in our legal system. I do NOT believe the government should be responsible for providing free medical care for all citizens.
I just love how people call it FREE healthcare. NOTHING is free.
"No incentive to excel". You don't have a clue. Australia excels in everything we do - sports, science, food, wine, you name it. We also have the same economic incentives you do, namely a free market, and the vast majority of people strive to better their lives just as people do in America. But we care about those at the bottom of the ladder, so we provide a SAFETY NET for them so that they don't have to live on the streets like animals.
See, the difference here is that I've been to your country 4 times - how many times have you been here? We have all the same material wealth and opportunity for excellence that you do, but we show more concern for the fringes of society in recognising that the playing field of life is not even.
You seem to think Australia is a socialist nation - it is not. It's a democratic nation basically ruled by the free market with a welfare safety net.
And when I mentioned capacity constraints I was using economic jargon - what that means is that our economy is so hot now due to the mineral boom that we do not have enough engineers, nurses, doctors, accountants, plumbers, electricians and teachers, we simply don't have enough people in a global labour market. It has nothing to do with "incentive to excel" as you so boldly claim - the incentive to excel in Australians is so strong that they are flocking overseas for the big bucks and to excel even more!
Seriously, let it go. you keep playing yourself. Can't you accept that a country can have a successful free market system and a successful welfare safety net at the same time? We, and many other countries, have proven that you can.
Quite right, clandestino, it's not free, it's funded by taxpayers (ie. public healthcare, which is the phrase I've used all along).
What is the role of government then? It is not to fill the gaps left that are left by the market? Is it not to protect those least able to protect themselves within a society?
In your cruel world, who is being left out of the healthcare system - who is deserving and who is not? Well, as we clearly see in America, the rich are well catered for and the poor get screwed (60,000,000 Americans have no health coverage). Is that fair?
You seem to have a notion that all people are created equal, born with an equal chance of "succeeding" in life, but that is absurd. Life is unfair to many people for many different reasons, and that cannot be changed, but the very least that people deserve from their government is assistance with their health. It's called the SOCIAL CONTRACT.
"No incentive to excel". You don't have a clue. Australia excels in everything we do - sports, science, food, wine, you name it. We also have the same economic incentives you do, namely a free market, and the vast majority of people strive to better their lives just as people do in America. But we care about those at the bottom of the ladder, so we provide a SAFETY NET for them so that they don't have to live on the streets like animals.
See, the difference here is that I've been to your country 4 times - how many times have you been here? We have all the same material wealth and opportunity for excellence that you do, but we show more concern for the fringes of society in recognising that the playing field of life is not even.
You seem to think Australia is a socialist nation - it is not. It's a democratic nation basically ruled by the free market with a welfare safety net.
And when I mentioned capacity constraints I was using economic jargon - what that means is that our economy is so hot now due to the mineral boom that we do not have enough engineers, nurses, doctors, accountants, plumbers, electricians and teachers, we simply don't have enough people in a global labour market. It has nothing to do with "incentive to excel" as you so boldly claim - the incentive to excel in Australians is so strong that they are flocking overseas for the big bucks and to excel even more!
Seriously, let it go. you keep playing yourself. Can't you accept that a country can have a successful free market system and a successful welfare safety net at the same time? We, and many other countries, have proven that you can.
Dude, I have nothing against your country. In fact, I LOVE it. I spent a month there in '85 and had a great time. I realize that was a long time ago.
The interesting thing is that you didn't respond to my question. Why is your GDP per capita so much lower than the USA's? It is very much related to the socialistic tendencies of the government. Go on and ADMIT IT!
Nor is war, or infrastructure, or foreign policy deals, or foreign aid, or military contracts, or congressional pork spending, or (and this is the kicker) borrowing our own money at interest from a non-federal bank with no American oversight.
The list of things this country spends money on outside of our own borders could pay for healthcare for every American 3x over without raising the federal tax system.
BUT
In order for the federal government to continue to waste our tax money on other, far less important things, they'd have to raise taxes.
Which gets people's pannies in a bunch (rightfully so). When really, with some actual restraint on federal spending, we could cure ALL our domestic ills in less than year. We are the only nation in the world capable of doing that, and yet we dont.
...i wonder why...
That is a sad fact.
I didn't say you have anything against my country, but you have shown that you know very little about it and I think your anti-welfare mindset blinds you from the fact that, done properly, a welfare safety net can work and makes sense for the entire society as it protects the poor from even worse privation.
Also, we have had a conservative government for the past 11 years, so you are wrong about the "socialistic tendencies" of Australian governments. Both sides of Australian politics recognise the value of publically funded health, education, and a welfare safety net. Also, the incoming Labor government is dominated by the right of the party and their policies are essentially moderate conservative.
Our GDP is lower than the US's because Australia has almost no secondary industry - we have an economy based on primary products (coal, iron, bauxite, wood, etc) - whereas the US has extensive secondary industry and thus value added products. The US is also by far the largest and most technologically advanced economy in the world, and has 300mil people for economies of scale, so I am not surprised that US GDP/capita is the highest in the world. However, GDP does not reliably mirror living standards once the basics are taken care of. Australian living standards are at least as good as those in any country I've been to (including US, UK, Japan, France, Germany, etc), and better than most.
Having a welfare safety net has nothing to do with GDP. Your idea that a basic safety net removes the will to excel and thus reduces GDP is absurd. Scott, where are you? Please explain simply why these are separate issues.
Last edited by RuffnReadyOzStyle; 11-30-2007 at 12:52 AM.
Oil wars are expensive. Iraq has cost $473bil* to this point - imagine if that had been applied to domestic issues like weaning the US economy off cheap foreign oil, healthcare, education, etc.Nor is war, or infrastructure, or foreign policy deals, or foreign aid, or military contracts, or congressional pork spending, or (and this is the kicker) borrowing our own money at interest from a non-federal bank with no American oversight.
The list of things this country spends money on outside of our own borders could pay for healthcare for every American 3x over without raising the federal tax system.
BUT
In order for the federal government to continue to waste our tax money on other, far less important things, they'd have to raise taxes.
Which gets people's pannies in a bunch (rightfully so). When really, with some actual restraint on federal spending, we could cure ALL our domestic ills in less than year. We are the only nation in the world capable of doing that, and yet we dont.
...i wonder why...
* http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Co...-of-War-3.html
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
