<p>OK, the issue is Krugman and how he uses his platform on the NYT to spew his false rhetoric. Are ya happy now? ;)</p>
<p>More than you know. :)</p>
<p>You’re asking us to take the National Review’s opinion on Krugman??? They themselves are totally biased and suspect. I’ll take Krugman anyday for information.</p>
<p>
Which is the way that many of us feel about the modern-day NYT. Donald Luskin (who has job in applied economics, unlike Krugman), provides many corroborating sources in his near weekly takedowns of Krugman’s propaganda. They’re just a mouse-click away. The NYT, and Krugman provide none. And your mere gainsaying of anything that appears in a publication you dislike adds nothing here.</p>
<p>Before you cast dispersion on NR, look at the article with the linked sources - far more corroboration than what Krugman provides with his made up stories.</p>
<p>Driver, I used to work in the same place as Donald Luskin. How come you don’t like my economic viewpoints? :)</p>
<p>You don’t provide links like he does! :)</p>
<p>You won’t like my links. :)</p>
<p>What a timely affirmation of my above-mentioned theory about over-all happiness and the fact that healthcare is only one small peice of the total equation.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200508020828.asp[/url]”>http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200508020828.asp</a></p>
<p>
This despite their number one healthcare ranking according to WHO. This comes from a Harris Poll which is summarized by the title: “Americans Remain More Optimistic and Satisfied with Life than Europeans” </p>
<p>The Luskin article also mentions the 15 THOUSAND people who died as a result of the heat (and a less than perfect healthcare system). Can you ever imagine 15,000 people in this country (with our #37 ranking) dieing because of heat?</p>
<p>Oh, Laura, never fear - all of the data is properly linked and attributed.</p>
<p>Part of my family actually lives in France and I’m a recruiter ( involved in employment here) so there are a couple of facts I can tell you about. the article does not tell the WHOLE story. They have health care for everyone from birth to death and yes, it’s good (according to my family over there.) They are FRENCH not Americans living abroad. They have a far nicer lifestyle than we do: Time off to raise their children, monetary support for poor families so the kids have enough to eat. Great education before elementary school starts, AND it’s not just playing, it’s real learning so every is really ready for school. It also serves as good childcare if you work.
I have news for you…our unemployment rate is not what it is said to be, because they think you’re not looking for work if you’re off the unemployment role. Since 2001 many of my IT people have been unemployed for over a year at diffenent times, but they weren’t counted. Some left the high paid field to work in retail, real estate etc. THEY ARE UNDEREMPLOYED…HERE. You know, you say the info from the article has facts, but be careful what you call “facts”.
My family doesn’t happen to live in Paris and they may not be considered rich, but my nephew just had a house built for him, his “wife” and new baby. He had all of his education paid for, through his masters, and it was excellent.
As for them dying from the heat, it had never been that hot before for such a prolonged period so they didn’t need air conditioning. THAT’S WHY THE FRENCH ARE CONCERNED ABOUT GLOBAL WARNING, and we don’t give a rat’s ass about it, except if you’re poor here and don’t have AC either. Maybe you didn’t read the papers lately, but we had people die in our country from the heat. But, of course they don’t count, they were the poor, the homeless, people the conservatives only think of as slaves for cheap labor and not worthy of caring about.
How many times have you been to France and have you actually lived with a French family?? If you’ve been staying at the luxury hotels you don’t know France.
When you speak of happiness it depends what you define as satisfied. IIf you want us all to be satisfied and happy we should all move to Sweden!</p>
<p>RE: Heat </p>
<p>"In 1995 there were no uniform standards for determining a “heat related death,” so officials had to develop them. Edmund Donoghue, Cook County’s chief medical examiner, used state-of-the-art criteria to report 465 heat-related deaths for the heat wave week and 521 heat deaths for the month of July.</p>
<p>But perhaps the best measure of heat deaths comes from another figurethe “excess death” ratewhich counts the difference between the reported deaths and the typical deaths for a given time period. According to this measure, **739 Chicagoans above the norm died during the week of 14 to 20 July **which means that Donoghue had been conservative in his accounts"</p>
<p>Source: “Heat Wave by Eric Klinenberg” </p>
<p>And two weeks ago: Phoenix Heat Wave Claims 13 Lives
<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/20/national/main710266.shtml[/url]”>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/20/national/main710266.shtml</a></p>
<p>Re: European health care
It would be nice to add that the health care is FAR from being free, but being paid by a slew of taxes ranging from huge employers’ contributions, sky-high income taxes, and gasoline taxes that add 200% to the costs. </p>
<p>We could have a “free” health care if you could find support for a 6 dollars/gallon gas or increase our income taxes by 50 to 100%. No free lunches!</p>
<p>Actually most who die from the heat in the US are the very old–and a few very young.
I’d bet a few of those IT people now selling real estate are thanking their lucky stars for that. There is no guarantee that you will have the same job for life. Otherwise there would still be people making typewriters and 8 tracks.</p>
<p>Xiggi, what are you trying to say with that heat link?</p>
<p>You’re right that taxes would be higher if government handled health care. My question is, what would be cheaper for me, what I pay now, or what I would pay in a government program? Where would I get better quality care? What is better for most Americans? </p>
<p>I know some people are going to say immediately, the private sector does health care better. I’m not so sure. The people at the top of these health organizations are making enormous amounts of money while health care insurance goes up at double digit rates. We seem to have a transfer of wealth from the patients and doctors to insurance companies and HMOs.</p>
<p>Dstark. the “heat” link was just an illustration that people can and do die every summer in the US. However, it usuallly makes the local news and has become a “business” as usual event. </p>
<p>Regarding the health issue, I think there are three elements: the first is the cost of providing the services and the second is the cost to administer a national program, and the last one is to have an “authority” to impose limits and sanctions. Right now, the French system is viewed as one of the most successful national systems. Yet, it was not long ago that the doctors and nurses were on strike and the government had to overhaul the entire funding mechanism and extend the reach of taxation beyond “earned” income. The French system is also a hybrid mechanism where the government does not really administers the system but the private sector does through primary and secondary insurers (mutuelles). </p>
<p>My take is that the US government has demonstrated sufficiently to be the least able to implement or manage a national health plan, or devise a funding system that would not cripple small businesses. However, the private sector does not seem much better in managing geath care than the government is. </p>
<p>If my numbers are correct, the French spend about 10% of GDP on health care, the British 7%, and the US about 15%. However, the Europeans public funding of health care is above 75% while in the US, the private sector pays an equal or larger share. In turn, the United States has an average tax rate below 30% while countries such as France and Belgium are above 45%. In the end, I believe that the US spends more for less coverage, but I believe that a lot could be tracked to runaway costs, excessive profiteering, and mismanagement, not to mention the impact of an absurd litigation system that has made glorifed ambulance chasers wealthy enough to run for the most prestigious public offices. </p>
<p>While I am far from having a solution, I’d like to see a number of pilot projects that involve providing insurance to the currently uninsured with the government handling 50% of it and putting the other 50% out in the private sector. The funding could come from tobacco and liquor taxes or a national sales tax. The option of raising the employment taxes does not seem very attractive, unless we do not care to maintain a single digit unemployment rate. Another alternative would be to allow a number of families to voluntary sign for up for an extension of the benefits offer to our elected officials. Successful programs could be expanded over time. If the government (of government/private) plans turn out to be better ran and cheaper, companies would be able to switch over and abandon the predatory companies. </p>
<p>I am afraid that a massive one-time attempt to overhaul the system will never be possible. </p>
<p>PS Looking at international health care statistics yields a few gems. For instance, the French smoke more, drink more but live longer than we do. On the other hand, we are -far- heavier than they do. Is it the wine/cheese miracle factor or that the lack of parking spaces make them walk more? Or maybe it is the 30 work week and seven weeks of paid vacation?</p>
<p>30 hour work weeks and 7 weeks of paid vacation sound good to me. I like your idea of pilot programs.</p>
<p>I don’t like a national sales tax. Too regressive for my taste.</p>
<p>I would love to see doctors take the bull by the horn and figure a way to get rid of the middlemen, but that isn’t likely.</p>
<p>Health care is going to be a really big issue over the next 30 years. We are going to need some innovative thinkers. I really like your idea of pilot programs. Of course, we can do a Logan’s Run and just start killing everybody over 30.</p>