| re: NJC: "Socialism" vs. "capitalism" w.r.t education and healthcare | |
|
Posted by: |
John_Galt 06:23 am UTC 11/19/08 |
| In reply to: | NJC: "Socialism" vs. "capitalism" w.r.t education and healthcare - JimmyG 07:42 pm UTC 11/15/08 |
| Jimmy, Thanks for commenting. I'm not sure that the education and health care sectors are good examples of capitalism in the United States, as these areas are heavily-regulated and subsidized here. I think what you might be saying is that European socialism, which is more upfront about what it is, is more effective. I've commented below on education and health care generally, because I thought your comments were interesting. **RE: Education** I think that the connection between college and a shot at the "big time" you describe is an indication of a larger problem in both of our countries. When the U.S. was younger and more free, it wasn't such a credentialized society. A guy with three months of schooling and a knack for inventing things that people need or want could, with a bit of luck, end up being the guy hiring all the college-educated numbskulls. I'm referring, of course, to Thomas Edison, the founder of GE and inventor of the electric light, but just recently I saw Bill Gates, a man who never graduated from college before he made his billions at Microsoft, give the graduation ceremony at the University he chose to drop out of. I heard that, about ten years ago, Steven Speilberg of Dreamworks SKG finally got his college diploma because he promised his mother he would, but he made all his good movies and founded Dreamworks before getting his degree. Many of the farmers I have represented have, in good years, annual incomes amounting to millions more than I make, but some of the older ones have not attended colleges. I despise the credentialism that big government creates. We have guys in the inner cities who become truly excellent at their work, but will never be promoted because their firm cannot promote them over "better qualified" college-educated people. Fear of employment laws and policies imposed to limit liability regarding descrimination is rampant and there are beauractrats who can make you suffer for hiring the person you know is subjectively better even though he didn't go to college. It's reduced our competitiveness internationally and made us look more European. I think college is a good thing for refining the mind and its great for your sex life, but I don't think it should have nearly the kind of importance in determining your shot at the "big time" in your country or sadly in mine. I mean, most of the folks I know majored in something completely unrelated to what they actually are doing in their post-college years. I also don't think college is for everyone. There are plenty of good people with genuine interests who can develop in different ways and its sad that credentialism is making them into second class citizens here just because they aren't compelled to put their minds through four years of distraction. Also, I don't think that, historically, Europeans who began poor were more likely to end up rich than Americans, but I suppose that could be true today. **RE: Health Care** One problem with health care in the U.S. is that the availability of insurance has perverted the capitalist pricing system. Normally, if I demanded $80,0000 a month for a medicinal cancer treatment, you might not pay that because you (a) don't have the money so you can't pay that and (b) would consider a cheaper substitute even if you did. Under that scenario, I'd have to lower the price if I wanted to maximize my returns and the U.S. would spend less on health care. But, health care consumers in the U.S. have the ability to pay becuase they are spending other people's money. To simplify, they usually pay a deductible and a pool of money is used to pay the difference. The deductible is the same regardless of whether the treatment is priced at $750.00 or $75,000 -- so guess which one they choose. The government heavily regulates insurance and provides some government subsidies, entitlements, and programs so there's not going to be a market-triggered adjustment. Ultimately, the U.S. pays for and gets too much health care, and that doesn't change the facts about diabetes and cancer that you mention -- although, it might be a cause of those facts. Our kids, who were conceived through fertility drugs and viagra, are on ritalin and their parents are sucking down painkillers after dinner. Everybody in the US can get emergency room or catastrophic care without insurance, but they'll be billed rates that are inflated by the availability of insurance and government entitlements. The presidential candidates think that the solution is to help more people, like the poor and self-employed, get insurance and government entitlements to insurance. Eventually though, someone should consider that many Americans are already getting too much health care and it just ain't healty. -=John Galt=- > I apologize for being late, but I just read John Galt's > take on "socialism" vs. "capitalism" w.r.t Obama, and - > although I must admit that it was a very intellectual take > on the subject - it has (at least) a couple of > shortcomings: > > Education (already mentioned during the previous > discussion). Many academic studies show that it's easier > for kids from low income families to advance in society in > "socialistic" European countries, where college education > is free, than in the U.S. Yes, it is true that stipends > are awarded to the brightest students from low income > families in the U.S, but a lot of people haven't fully > matured after they finish high school, and they should > have the *freedom* to still get a shot at a college degree > and higher salaries without having to "eat dirt" in a > lousy work environment (by European standards) on a > factory floor for decades before getting a hypotethical > shot at "the big-time"....yes, they do have to pay higher > taxes once they get that big shot, but a profession should > not only be about a paycheck, it should also be an > identity...and you don't necessarily have to make 20x more > than the guy on the floor, 5-10x more is still highly > significant! > > Healthcare: The U.S spends more on healthcare than any > other industrialized nation and still th life expectancy > is shorter and diabetes and cancer are more common - one > academic study from a couple of years ago even showed that > Americans in the highest income quartile were twice as > likely to suffer from diabetes and cancer than Brits in > the lowest income quartile - this can't only be blamed on > diet, since any Brit can confirm that the British diet is > not exactly the healthiest one on the planet... > > /Jimmy | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | NJC: "Socialism" vs. "capitalism" w.r.t education and healthcare - JimmyG 07:42 pm UTC 11/15/08 |
| Next: | re: NJC: "Socialism" vs. "capitalism" w.r.t education and healthcare - JimmyG 08:30 pm UTC 11/20/08 |
| Thread: |
|