The Free Market vs. Obama

[Bfgrn]

Yes, the OP did use the term, but the OP used it properly, and you went on to blame the free market, which doesn't actually exist, for not fixing the collapse in 2008. I pointed out how absurd that is, and you accuse me of obfuscating.

I still want to know how something that doesn't exist is responsible for the problems we face and also responsible for not responding to a government created problem.

AGAIN...obfuscation. I guess I have to be more specific for someone who is this obtuse:

Where was the private investors when the economy and job loss was in free-fall in 2008?

How can you use a term 'properly', if it doesn't exist? You are correct ONLY in the fact there is no 'free market'...it never existed and it never WILL exist. It is a TOTAL misnomer and a right wing framing tool. The "free market" doesn't exist. There is no such thing. All markets are constructed. Think of the stock exchange. It has rules. The World Trade Organization has 900 pages of regulations. The bond market has all kinds of regulations and commissions to make sure those regulations carried out. Every market has rules.

What happened in this country was a failure of the PRIVATE sector. The government's failure was a lack of regulations, lack of proper oversight and unwillingness to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate the criminals on Wall Street and PRIVATE lending institutions.

The private investors were where they always are, investing. The problem was that the artificially inflated housing bubble, which was created by the government to artificially prop up the economy, burst. That was not caused by private investors, and cannot be fixed by them, especially when they do not have a free market to work in.

The private investors were not investing in jobs. And the private banks were not lending to private investors.

The artificial housing bubble was created by private lending institutions that fall outside government regulations and were 'free' to prop up their bottom line, by mostly wealthy speculators whose only criteria was securing low or no down payment loans because they had no intention of occupancy. And credit rating agencies (CRA) who gave their blessing to garbage loans.

But if you insist on blaming government, then Bush and Paulson are your men...

Maybe you just FORGOT...

Bush's 'ownership society'

"America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages—derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.

As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.

End of the ‘Ownership Society’

 

[Nova78]

Free Market vs. Obama

Yea, Obama will freely market your money to others...........

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hey PC, where was the 'free market' and private investors when the economy and job loss was in free-fall in 2008? Nowhere to be found...

Looks like Arthur C. Brooks has been exposed. His so called study about charity was portrayed as 'a study done by a liberal'...now, he uses Hayek after reading a comic book.


Hayek on Social Insurance

By Dylan Matthews

Jennifer Schuessler has a great short essay in the New York Times Book Review looking at the reception of Friedrich Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" over the years, including this can't-be-made-enough point:

But unlike some of his champions in 2010, Hayek didn’t oppose all forms of government intervention. “The preservation of competition,” he wrote, is not “incompatible with an extensive system of social services — so long as the organization of these services is not designed in such a way as to make competition ineffective over wide fields.” This qualification, however, was left out of a comic-book version of “The Road to Serfdom” printed in Look magazine in 1945 (and distributed as a pamphlet by General Motors), which showed well-intentioned regulation giving way to more sinister forms of control.

As a side note, that Look magazine comic adaptation is hilarious, and includes great lines such as, "If you're fired from your job, it's apt to be by a firing squad," and imagery like an agent of the socialist state oppressing citizens by snapping their golf clubs in half.

Going further than Schuessler, it's worth noting that Hayek does not only accept a limited welfare state, but specifically singles out health care as an area where the state should provide a safety net:

There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.

Emphasis mine. Now, Hayek obviously isn't an idol of liberal economic policy folks for a whole batch of reasons, not least the central premise of Road to Serfdom that the sorts of social democratic policies being pursued in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe during and after World War II would open the door to totalitarianism. But it's more than a little jarring to hear him invoked in opposition to a health care bill that's, if anything, less ambitious than the sort of thing he's talking about here.

"Looks like Arthur C. Brooks has been exposed. His so called study about charity was portrayed as 'a study done by a liberal'.."


1. "Philanthropy Expert: Conservatives Are More Generous
By Frank Brieaddy
Religion News Service



SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America -- and it's making him nervous.

The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.

In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.

The book, titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.

When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."
Philanthropy Expert Says Conservatives Are More Generous -- Beliefnet.com - Pangloss's column on Newsvine


2. "Looks like Arthur C. Brooks has been exposed. His so called study about charity was portrayed as 'a study done by a liberal'.."

Au contraire....

...looks like BoringFriendlessGuy has been exposed as a lamebrain!!!

Well...not 'exposed,' since it has always been eminently clear.


3. So, QED, Brooks was a Liberal when he began his scholarly study of charity in America, and the data proved to him that he was incorrect....so he became a conservative.

What have we learned?
That Brooks has the acuity to realize his errors and correct same.
Boring....has not.


4. Friendly advice, Boring....today, being the anniversary of the very first B.A. issued in America [ September 23, 1642 The first BA degree in America issued by Harvard College], what an excellent day for you to begin to acquire an education!

.....well...education...within your limitations.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Free Market vs. Obama

Yea, Obama will freely market your money to others...........View attachment 21310

“And if I laugh at any mortal thing, 'Tis that I may not weep”
Lord Byron

 

[PoliticalChic]

BTW...

The United States and the World
1. The US is the 3rd largest exporter of goods (8.3%) , after Germany ( 9.5) and China (8.7)
2. The US is the largest exporter of services (13.9 %) followed by UK (8.3) and Germany ( 6.6)
3. Taken as a total of goods and services, the US is more than twice as prolific as the next nearest nation.
About the International Trade Administration

Not per capita. Th US is a masive economy - that does not make it especially competitive.

This year’s report findings show that Switzerland tops the overall rankings in The Global Competitiveness Report for the fourth consecutive year. Singapore remains in second position with Finland, in third position, overtaking Sweden 4th). These and other Northern and Western European countries dominate the top 10 with the Netherlands, Germany and United Kingdom respectively ranked 5th, 6th and 8th. The United States (7th), Hong Kong (9th) and Japan (10th) complete the top 10.

Global Competitiveness | World Economic Forum - Global Competitiveness

Now 7th is not bad - but it is not amazing.

Not as competitive as we could be???

Really?

I wonder if this could be a reason:


Consider, by example, Title 42 of the US Code: Laws dealing with public health and welfare. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sup_01_42.html Today, this federal law is 1700 pages more than it was prior to the New Deal. The reason is the creation of more and more bureaus and agencies endowed with ever broader responsibilities and discretion in defining the rules that govern our activities and our lives. And these rules have the full force of law! Congress has increased the number of rules whose infractions are criminalized, waiving the common law requirement that one knows he is breaking the law. Today, one can be jailed for violating a regulation that one had no reason to know even existed!

a. While the officials in these agencies are generally good people, they become focused on their particular portfolio of duties, that, often, they cannot see the consequences on other parts of society. Put this together with human nature, and one can see bullying, and misuse of power, especially when these individuals are immune to penalty, and supported by free and extensive legal representation: they have sovereign immunity in their positions.

b. A remedy would be the ability of citizens to sue the federal government to protect their legitimate interests, for damages. While currently unconstitutional, the Congress can waive sovereign immunity,

c. Such a congressional waiver would not only protect the citizenry, but would go far toward defining the limits of federal authority.

d. While not unconstitutional, regulation may be considered extra-constitutional. There may be some point where it is considered to be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to an agency or bureau. Under Obamacare, or Dodd-Frank Reform we see legislation where regulators have not yet determined what the regulation should be…how can Congress allow a law without knowing what the impact will be?
James L. Buckley spoke at the Heritage Foundation, on his book “Freedom at Risk: Reflections on Politics, Liberty, and the State.”


So....you a supporter of big government?

 

[Saigon]

Political Chic -

How do you explain the fact that several countries which are MORE competitive than the US are also more regulated?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Political Chic -

How do you explain the fact that several countries which are MORE competitive than the US are also more regulated?

Show same.

 

[Bfgrn]

Hey PC, where was the 'free market' and private investors when the economy and job loss was in free-fall in 2008? Nowhere to be found...

Looks like Arthur C. Brooks has been exposed. His so called study about charity was portrayed as 'a study done by a liberal'...now, he uses Hayek after reading a comic book.


Hayek on Social Insurance

By Dylan Matthews

Jennifer Schuessler has a great short essay in the New York Times Book Review looking at the reception of Friedrich Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" over the years, including this can't-be-made-enough point:

But unlike some of his champions in 2010, Hayek didn’t oppose all forms of government intervention. “The preservation of competition,” he wrote, is not “incompatible with an extensive system of social services — so long as the organization of these services is not designed in such a way as to make competition ineffective over wide fields.” This qualification, however, was left out of a comic-book version of “The Road to Serfdom” printed in Look magazine in 1945 (and distributed as a pamphlet by General Motors), which showed well-intentioned regulation giving way to more sinister forms of control.

As a side note, that Look magazine comic adaptation is hilarious, and includes great lines such as, "If you're fired from your job, it's apt to be by a firing squad," and imagery like an agent of the socialist state oppressing citizens by snapping their golf clubs in half.

Going further than Schuessler, it's worth noting that Hayek does not only accept a limited welfare state, but specifically singles out health care as an area where the state should provide a safety net:

There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.

Emphasis mine. Now, Hayek obviously isn't an idol of liberal economic policy folks for a whole batch of reasons, not least the central premise of Road to Serfdom that the sorts of social democratic policies being pursued in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe during and after World War II would open the door to totalitarianism. But it's more than a little jarring to hear him invoked in opposition to a health care bill that's, if anything, less ambitious than the sort of thing he's talking about here.

"Looks like Arthur C. Brooks has been exposed. His so called study about charity was portrayed as 'a study done by a liberal'.."


1. "Philanthropy Expert: Conservatives Are More Generous
By Frank Brieaddy
Religion News Service



SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America -- and it's making him nervous.

The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.

In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.

The book, titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.

When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."
Philanthropy Expert Says Conservatives Are More Generous -- Beliefnet.com - Pangloss's column on Newsvine


2. "Looks like Arthur C. Brooks has been exposed. His so called study about charity was portrayed as 'a study done by a liberal'.."

Au contraire....

...looks like BoringFriendlessGuy has been exposed as a lamebrain!!!

Well...not 'exposed,' since it has always been eminently clear.


3. So, QED, Brooks was a Liberal when he began his scholarly study of charity in America, and the data proved to him that he was incorrect....so he became a conservative.

What have we learned?
That Brooks has the acuity to realize his errors and correct same.
Boring....has not.


4. Friendly advice, Boring....today, being the anniversary of the very first B.A. issued in America [ September 23, 1642 The first BA degree in America issued by Harvard College], what an excellent day for you to begin to acquire an education!

.....well...education...within your limitations.

Pretty funny PC, your penchant for garrulousness is your undoing...

Let me make what you just said concise...

"Looks like Arthur C. Brooks has been exposed. His so called study about charity was portrayed as 'a study done by a liberal'.."

and

3. So, QED, Brooks was a Liberal when he began his scholarly study of charity in America

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hey PC, where was the 'free market' and private investors when the economy and job loss was in free-fall in 2008? Nowhere to be found...

Looks like Arthur C. Brooks has been exposed. His so called study about charity was portrayed as 'a study done by a liberal'...now, he uses Hayek after reading a comic book.


Hayek on Social Insurance

By Dylan Matthews

Jennifer Schuessler has a great short essay in the New York Times Book Review looking at the reception of Friedrich Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" over the years, including this can't-be-made-enough point:

But unlike some of his champions in 2010, Hayek didn’t oppose all forms of government intervention. “The preservation of competition,” he wrote, is not “incompatible with an extensive system of social services — so long as the organization of these services is not designed in such a way as to make competition ineffective over wide fields.” This qualification, however, was left out of a comic-book version of “The Road to Serfdom” printed in Look magazine in 1945 (and distributed as a pamphlet by General Motors), which showed well-intentioned regulation giving way to more sinister forms of control.

As a side note, that Look magazine comic adaptation is hilarious, and includes great lines such as, "If you're fired from your job, it's apt to be by a firing squad," and imagery like an agent of the socialist state oppressing citizens by snapping their golf clubs in half.

Going further than Schuessler, it's worth noting that Hayek does not only accept a limited welfare state, but specifically singles out health care as an area where the state should provide a safety net:

There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.

Emphasis mine. Now, Hayek obviously isn't an idol of liberal economic policy folks for a whole batch of reasons, not least the central premise of Road to Serfdom that the sorts of social democratic policies being pursued in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe during and after World War II would open the door to totalitarianism. But it's more than a little jarring to hear him invoked in opposition to a health care bill that's, if anything, less ambitious than the sort of thing he's talking about here.

"Looks like Arthur C. Brooks has been exposed. His so called study about charity was portrayed as 'a study done by a liberal'.."


1. "Philanthropy Expert: Conservatives Are More Generous
By Frank Brieaddy
Religion News Service



SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America -- and it's making him nervous.

The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.

In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.

The book, titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.

When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."
Philanthropy Expert Says Conservatives Are More Generous -- Beliefnet.com - Pangloss's column on Newsvine


2. "Looks like Arthur C. Brooks has been exposed. His so called study about charity was portrayed as 'a study done by a liberal'.."

Au contraire....

...looks like BoringFriendlessGuy has been exposed as a lamebrain!!!

Well...not 'exposed,' since it has always been eminently clear.


3. So, QED, Brooks was a Liberal when he began his scholarly study of charity in America, and the data proved to him that he was incorrect....so he became a conservative.

What have we learned?
That Brooks has the acuity to realize his errors and correct same.
Boring....has not.


4. Friendly advice, Boring....today, being the anniversary of the very first B.A. issued in America [ September 23, 1642 The first BA degree in America issued by Harvard College], what an excellent day for you to begin to acquire an education!

.....well...education...within your limitations.

Pretty funny PC, your penchant for garrulousness is your undoing...

Let me make what you just said concise...

"Looks like Arthur C. Brooks has been exposed. His so called study about charity was portrayed as 'a study done by a liberal'.."

and

3. So, QED, Brooks was a Liberal when he began his scholarly study of charity in America

It seems your lack of education forces you to make unfounded posts....

Exposed: uncovered; putting in view or danger.


Rather than putting Brooks in view or danger, the fact that he began his research as a Liberal, reinforces the objectivity of his conclusions.

Now...you, on the other hand, in somehow seeing his provenance as a Lib as 'exposing' him, 'exposes' what a dunce you are.


Please...allow me to retract my earlier suggestion that you begin to acquire an education....
...don't ever change.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Political Chic -

How do you explain the fact that several countries which are MORE competitive than the US are also more regulated?

Several? There are three countries that are considered more competitive than the US. As far as I know, all of them are less regulated than the US.

 

[Rshermr]

Political Chic -

How do you explain the fact that several countries which are MORE competitive than the US are also more regulated?

Several? There are three countries that are considered more competitive than the US. As far as I know, all of them are less regulated than the US.

And quantam continues his vacuous statements. No proof, of course, just dogma. Completely worthless. You can show him anything, but he will never learn anything. Because he is a con tool.

 

[oldfart]

We're running trillion dollar budget deficits each year as it is and now you want the government to start picking up the tab for people's medical bills too? How has that been working out in Europe lately?

Actually pretty well. They spend half of what Americans do on medical care, live longer, and get better medical care.

 

[PoliticalChic]

We're running trillion dollar budget deficits each year as it is and now you want the government to start picking up the tab for people's medical bills too? How has that been working out in Europe lately?

Actually pretty well. They spend half of what Americans do on medical care, live longer, and get better medical care.

Americans live longer than any other industrialized nation.

How much is that worth to you?

 

[Supposn]

Political Chick, trade deficits’ are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs.

I’m a proponent of a market (rather than government) driven policy to reduce USA’s trade deficit of goods. (Assessing goods values are technical rather than policy determinations); this proposal grants government no policy discretion.

It is absolutely free enterprise but it would prevent USA’s aggregate trade deficit of assessed goods. It’s an indirect but effective subsidy of USA exports and all direct net expenses due to the policy are borne by USA purchasers of imported goods.

Refer to: World Wide Web site “USA-Trade-Deficit,Blogspot.Com “.
or to the topics of “Warren Buffett's concept to significantly reduce USA's trade deficit”
or “Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs”.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Bfgrn]

We're running trillion dollar budget deficits each year as it is and now you want the government to start picking up the tab for people's medical bills too? How has that been working out in Europe lately?

Actually pretty well. They spend half of what Americans do on medical care, live longer, and get better medical care.

Americans live longer than any other industrialized nation.

How much is that worth to you?

Link?

 

[Care4all]

We're running trillion dollar budget deficits each year as it is and now you want the government to start picking up the tab for people's medical bills too? How has that been working out in Europe lately?

Actually pretty well. They spend half of what Americans do on medical care, live longer, and get better medical care.

Americans live longer than any other industrialized nation.

How much is that worth to you?

Simply NOT TRUE PC, we rank 50th....
Canada, Great Britain, France, Portugal, Spain, finland, Italy, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia, Sweden, switzerland, Israel, Iceland, Netherlands, Bermuda, New Zealand, Germany, Cayman Islands, Korea, Ireland, etc etc etc etc etc

ALL HAVE LIFESPANS longer than the USA.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually pretty well. They spend half of what Americans do on medical care, live longer, and get better medical care.

Americans live longer than any other industrialized nation.

How much is that worth to you?

Link?

WHAT????

Wait just one dang minute!!!

Is there an unspoken suggestion that you are educable????

...that, once you have someone explain to you that the link supports exactly what I've posted, you'll slap your forehead and say " Ohhhh...I didn't know that!!!!
I'm chagrined!!'

Is that it?


OK, then.....

"Life Expectancy. Another frequently cited statistic is that according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the U.S. ranks 18th among 30 world democracies in life expectancy. However, health care is not the only factor in life expectancy. If you correct for two causes of death not directly related to health care—homicides and automobile accidents—the U.S. actually rises to the top of the list for life expectancy."
Inaccurate Grounds for Calling U.S. Health Care Inferior

“One often-heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health.

In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.
And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels.
Dave Petno | On Freedom



Hey....I didn't hear that slap!!



Haven't you realized yet that I never make a mistake???
I thought I did once, but I was wrong.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually pretty well. They spend half of what Americans do on medical care, live longer, and get better medical care.

Americans live longer than any other industrialized nation.

How much is that worth to you?

Simply NOT TRUE PC, we rank 50th....
Canada, Great Britain, France, Portugal, Spain, finland, Italy, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia, Sweden, switzerland, Israel, Iceland, Netherlands, Bermuda, New Zealand, Germany, Cayman Islands, Korea, Ireland, etc etc etc etc etc

ALL HAVE LIFESPANS longer than the USA.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Yeah, it's true.


Check out post #37



And....for your reading pleasure:

The source of the data you've provided is WHO/UN.

So we have been told that the United States is listed at number 37 in world ranking for health care. Here is why only fools and America-bashers attribute any significance to this rating: WHO/UN states that their data “is hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research” and when they couldn’t find data, they “developed [data] through a variety of techniques.” WHO accepts whatever governments tell them, including reputable regimes such as Castro’s Cuba.
WHO | Message from the Director-General


The oh-so-political WHO/UN is not thrilled with governments like the US, as they have determined that we do not have a progressive-enough tax system. This is one of the criteria for judging our healthcare.
WHO, “World Health Organization Assesses
theWorld’sHealth Systems,” press release, undated,
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre
/press_release/en/index.html.


1. Health Level: 25 percent
2. Health Distribution: 25 percent
3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent
4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent
5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf

After an intensive survey of over 1000 respondents, half of whom were members of UN staff, they designed a measurement of healthcare in which 62.5% of the criteria of their healthcare study on some type of “equality!”
WHO | The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance

Note that the United States suffers in the WHO/UN healthcare ratings due to a definition of fairness which reads: “the smallest feasible differences between individuals and groups.” Therefore a poor nation that does not have our level of expensive or experimental treatment, and therefore lets all suffers die, would have a higher rating than the US.

This is not to imply that only the rich in America can get the ‘expensive’ treatment, since there are many options such as a)getting a loan, b) asking a family member or a charity for help, c) find a doctor, hospital, or drug company willing to work at a reduced rate. All are common.
And because we have rich people who pay a great deal for the best healthcare, enabling research and development, the end result is that this brings costs down and makes treatment affordable for everyone, even in socialist countries.


Glad I could help.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Political Chic -

How do you explain the fact that several countries which are MORE competitive than the US are also more regulated?

Gee....you seem to have disappeared when Quantum asked you to 'put up.'

Could be you were talking through your hat?


And along the same line, are you familiar with the Federal Register?

The government publishes all regulations every year.

In 2010, there were 82,480 pages.

In 2011, there were only 82,415


https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2012/03/FR-Pages-published.pdf



So....you have that lists of nations that suffer under an even greater burden of regulation?
No?
How come?

 

[Care4all]

Americans live longer than any other industrialized nation.

How much is that worth to you?

Simply NOT TRUE PC, we rank 50th....
Canada, Great Britain, France, Portugal, Spain, finland, Italy, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia, Sweden, switzerland, Israel, Iceland, Netherlands, Bermuda, New Zealand, Germany, Cayman Islands, Korea, Ireland, etc etc etc etc etc

ALL HAVE LIFESPANS longer than the USA.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Yeah, it's true.


Check out post #37



And....for your reading pleasure:

The source of the data you've provided is WHO/UN.

So we have been told that the United States is listed at number 37 in world ranking for health care. Here is why only fools and America-bashers attribute any significance to this rating: WHO/UN states that their data “is hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research” and when they couldn’t find data, they “developed [data] through a variety of techniques.” WHO accepts whatever governments tell them, including reputable regimes such as Castro’s Cuba.
WHO | Message from the Director-General


The oh-so-political WHO/UN is not thrilled with governments like the US, as they have determined that we do not have a progressive-enough tax system. This is one of the criteria for judging our healthcare.
WHO, “World Health Organization Assesses
theWorld’sHealth Systems,” press release, undated,
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre
/press_release/en/index.html.


1. Health Level: 25 percent
2. Health Distribution: 25 percent
3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent
4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent
5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf

After an intensive survey of over 1000 respondents, half of whom were members of UN staff, they designed a measurement of healthcare in which 62.5% of the criteria of their healthcare study on some type of “equality!”
WHO | The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance

Note that the United States suffers in the WHO/UN healthcare ratings due to a definition of fairness which reads: “the smallest feasible differences between individuals and groups.” Therefore a poor nation that does not have our level of expensive or experimental treatment, and therefore lets all suffers die, would have a higher rating than the US.

This is not to imply that only the rich in America can get the ‘expensive’ treatment, since there are many options such as a)getting a loan, b) asking a family member or a charity for help, c) find a doctor, hospital, or drug company willing to work at a reduced rate. All are common.
And because we have rich people who pay a great deal for the best healthcare, enabling research and development, the end result is that this brings costs down and makes treatment affordable for everyone, even in socialist countries.


Glad I could help.

excuse me PC, but you said that Americans live longer than people in any other industrialized nation...this is what I was commenting on...

Which is simply NOT TRUE.

I will take the CIA world fact book, over the posted link you gave in post #37....if you take out homicides for the USA, then you have to take them out for all other nations as well PC, and I don't see this anywhere in the article you provided....nor did I see them give any numbers on it, just an opinion on it....