Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <uXnzb.211214$Dw6.768125@attbi_s02>,
> >> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
> >> >In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
> >> >>>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >>>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
> >> >>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less
> >on
> >> health
> >> >>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
> >> insurance
> >> >>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> >> >
> >> >>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for
> >health
> >> >>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
> >> >
> >> >>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
> >> Japan,
> >> >>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
> >> everybody?
> >> >
> >> >>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
> >> >>>system cost less than the current private one?
> >> >
> >> >> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
> >> >> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care
> >instead
> >> of
> >> >> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
> >> >
> >> >So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of
> >care.
> >> >I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
> >> >have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
> >> >in the USA.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and
> >western
> >> Europe are healthier and live longer.
> >
> >The Europeans and Canadians choose to tax themsleves to provide cradle to
> >grave care for health care. It's a choice they make. Good for them.
>
> Yet they pass less for health care then we do. Sounds like a win-win
> situation to me.
Yet you prefer to live in the USA with its terrible healthcare. Amazing.
>
>
> >There's a price they pay for that. There's far less innovation and change
> >in Europe than there is in the US. They tend to stick with the status quo.
>
> What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is outdoing
> Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
No, cheap prices thanks to various subsidies, past and present. Airbus is
actually remarkedly inefficient, they move huge airframe parts around at fantastic
expense to different countries for political reasons, not economic reasons. But
they would not exist at all if it hadn't been for past subsidies, and they get
enormous tax abatements and loan guarantees, just as their fellow subsidized ship
builder cousins. In addition to this, Airbus is getting massive state subsidies
to develope the A380. See Aviation Week & ST (ongoing).
>
>
> >In the US, the competitive juices among companies are often too much for
> >European companies. Airbus was subsidized for years to support foreign
> >sales.
>
> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a form of
> subsidy to Boeing?
Negative.
> Besides, if the gov't pays for health care instead of the employer, that's
> reducing the costs to the employer.
Until they get the TAX bill. (oops you forgot that "the govt" doesn't pay for
anything, it just passes along the cash from the taxpayers...)
>
>
> >Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
> >CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
> >movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as a
> >universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
> >envelope. Is the most efficient? Maybe not, but it's the price we pay for
> >innovation and new technologies. High energy competition is dollar driven
> >(oh, how evil.... the greed!). The European model severely dampens that
> >energy. You can see the desparation to bring in outside money in Europe;
> >like government subsidies, their selling of weapons systems (France,
> >Germany) to ANYONE (read Saddam Hussein), willingness to accept despotism in
> >exchange for lucrative trade deals (do you really think France opposed the
> >war on "moral" grounds?).
> >
> >
> Yet you can see autos in Europe that get 40 mpg.
We can see autos in USA that get 50 mpg.
> Ones that go 200+ mph.
> You can see high-speed rail we can only dream of here.
True, since the population centers are much closer together. High speed rail makes
sense in some portions of the USA, but for political reasons a lot of money has to
be spent where it doesn't, which is why it will never be widespread here, even
where it would be highly used.
