Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers

Following up to mrtravel

How many people with many different pre-existing health conditions can
afford these high premiums?

Why should someone else pay for them?

because Europeans believe health care to be above ability to pay.

That's the fundamental difference, you summed it up well.

"That guys sick, why should I help him?"
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

The Reid wrote:
Following up to mrtravel

How many people with many different pre-existing health conditions can
afford these high premiums?

Why should someone else pay for them?

because Europeans believe health care to be above ability to pay.

But that's an illusion. It's not free. And if you try to create some
type of free system it ends up costing more and providing less. The UK
and Canada are already experiencing care rationing. Both actually
provide great examples. Everyone pays taxes to cover the health care.
The very wealthy can also afford private insurance. So they get health
care when they need it.

So by trying to "even things out" what they have done is to create
systems where instead of 80% getting health care when they want it and
20% having to wait for public assistance, now only the top 10% get
health care when they want it while 90% stand in line. I guess that is
equality. Equally bad for the majority.

Following up to Tchiowa

because Europeans believe health care to be above ability to pay.

But that's an illusion. It's not free.

nobody thinks its free. Its free at point of delivery and we all
pay according to ability, not need.

And if you try to create some
type of free system it ends up costing more and providing less.

I don't think there's evidence for that. Cutting out the
insurance companies saves money.

The UK and Canada are already experiencing care rationing.

Because US thinking right wingers like Thatcher wanted to
underfund the health service and did. Its a long haul back to
what it should be.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

The Reid wrote:
Following up to Tchiowa

because Europeans believe health care to be above ability to pay.

But that's an illusion. It's not free.

nobody thinks its free. Its free at point of delivery and we all
pay according to ability, not need.

And that's why it fails.

And if you try to create some
type of free system it ends up costing more and providing less.

I don't think there's evidence for that. Cutting out the
insurance companies saves money.

Do you really thing that cutting out the insurance companies (who are
private enterprises and have to worry about competition and who take
the premiums and invest them to make a profit while waiting to pay
claims) and replacing them with a government agency (who has no
motivation to perform efficiently and has a history of bad performance
and who takes premiums and uses them to fund over-bloated
bureaucracies) helps???

One problem with those on the Left is that they see a problem (like the
10-20% of people with no health insurance) and then come up with
another solution but make no attempt to try to see if it actually makes
the problem go away.

The UK and Canada are already experiencing care rationing.

Because US thinking right wingers like Thatcher wanted to
underfund the health service and did. Its a long haul back to
what it should be.

And if it ever gets to what it "should be" the tax rate would be so
high it would collapse the economy.

Take the whole socialist thing to its logical conclusion. Socialists
want the government to take care of health care, education, retirement,
you name it. If the government does *everything* for us then the
government will need *all* of our money. 100% services means 100%
taxation.

And when people know that their efforts don't benefits themselves or
their families they quit trying. If you want to see how that works go
to Check Point Charlie in Berlin and walk down the road where The Wall
used to be. On one side is the former West Berlin: modern buildings,
good roads, looks pretty good. On the other side is the former East
Berlin: crumbling buildings, looks 100 years older. The difference is
dramatic. And the difference was Socialism.

If you don't like that difference compare North and South Korea.
Eastern Europe and Western Europe. Cuba and Mexico. Russia and the US.
China and Taiwan.

Following up to Tchiowa

nobody thinks its free. Its free at point of delivery and we all
pay according to ability, not need.

And that's why it fails.

nonsense

And if you try to create some
type of free system it ends up costing more and providing less.

I don't think there's evidence for that. Cutting out the
insurance companies saves money.

Do you really thing that cutting out the insurance companies (who are
private enterprises and have to worry about competition....

yes

and who take
the premiums and invest them to make a profit while waiting to pay
claims) and replacing them with a government agency (who has no
motivation to perform efficiently and has a history of bad performance
and who takes premiums and uses them to fund over-bloated
bureaucracies) helps???

NHS staff have a motivation to perform well that right wingers
cant understand, not everybody is motivated purely by money and
competition.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Tchiowa wrote:
And if you try to create some
type of free system it ends up costing more and providing less.

I don't think there's evidence for that. Cutting out the
insurance companies saves money.

Do you really thing that cutting out the insurance companies (who are
private enterprises and have to worry about competition and who take
the premiums and invest them to make a profit while waiting to pay
claims) and replacing them with a government agency (who has no
motivation to perform efficiently and has a history of bad performance
and who takes premiums and uses them to fund over-bloated
bureaucracies) helps???


You've been presented the evidence before, the US actually spends more
for a system covering less.

That's a pretty sound definition of inefficient.


J.

Jordi wrote:

Tchiowa wrote:

And if you try to create some
type of free system it ends up costing more and providing less.

I don't think there's evidence for that. Cutting out the
insurance companies saves money.

Do you really thing that cutting out the insurance companies (who are
private enterprises and have to worry about competition and who take
the premiums and invest them to make a profit while waiting to pay
claims) and replacing them with a government agency (who has no
motivation to perform efficiently and has a history of bad performance
and who takes premiums and uses them to fund over-bloated
bureaucracies) helps???



You've been presented the evidence before, the US actually spends more
for a system covering less.

That's a pretty sound definition of inefficient.


So, you suggest we make it like other countries where everyone waits in
line?

Jordi wrote:

Tchiowa wrote:
And if you try to create some
type of free system it ends up costing more and providing less.

I don't think there's evidence for that. Cutting out the
insurance companies saves money.

Do you really thing that cutting out the insurance companies (who are
private enterprises and have to worry about competition and who take
the premiums and invest them to make a profit while waiting to pay
claims) and replacing them with a government agency (who has no
motivation to perform efficiently and has a history of bad performance
and who takes premiums and uses them to fund over-bloated
bureaucracies) helps???


You've been presented the evidence before, the US actually spends more
for a system covering less.

That's a pretty sound definition of inefficient.

As someone who grew up with the 'wonderful' Canada socialized medical
system, I will glady run to the "inefficient" American one! Geez!

Jordi wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:
And if you try to create some
type of free system it ends up costing more and providing less.

I don't think there's evidence for that. Cutting out the
insurance companies saves money.

Do you really thing that cutting out the insurance companies (who are
private enterprises and have to worry about competition and who take
the premiums and invest them to make a profit while waiting to pay
claims) and replacing them with a government agency (who has no
motivation to perform efficiently and has a history of bad performance
and who takes premiums and uses them to fund over-bloated
bureaucracies) helps???


You've been presented the evidence before, the US actually spends more
for a system covering less.

That's a pretty sound definition of inefficient.

And you've been provided the evidence before that:

a) they system does *not* cover less.

b) the other systems survive by rationing care.

Tchiowa writes:

The failure of Socialism, Marxism and all the similar "isms" stems from
the fact that they don't understand how competition works. They
believe, like you seem to do, that people will perform at the top of
their game just because. In reality they don't. Some do, of course. But
many don't. And when you get into a situation where there are no
repercussions for "failure to perform" then some won't. And others will
get tired of pushing hard while their colleague does nothing and give
up themselves.

Quite so. And it very much surprises me that so many promotors of
these "-isms" fail to understand this very fundamental fact of human
nature.

Notions like communism can work in small, homogenous, intelligent,
well-motivated communities ... such as monasteries. They do not work
in large and heterogenous societies where external motivations to work
hard "just because" or to avoid public welfare "just because" do not
exist.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.