Is Universal Healthcare the Solution to Inefficient Capitalism?

[Art]

Yes of course use per capita, otherwise one can draw a line around any group of countries you like and just add up GDP.

So IBM is less economically proficient than the operation with a $2 million turnover and 2 employees with 40% annual growth using only revenue per employee as a measure. Evidently the size of an economy affects it's growth rate, the bigger it is the harder it is to have higher than average growth and so gross GDP cannot be ignored.

It is interesting Ireland comes up here as it was just took the highest http://www.heritage.org/Index/topten.cfm" ranking of all EU countries, i.e. its the most Laissez Faire in the EU. Ireland is indeed booming; its GDP is 40% greater than the four big European countries (i.e. France). I know I tried my best to help by means of Guinness purchases when I was there.

Or the heritage foundation simply likes to claim the most successful countries as their own Bear in mind Irish industry and commerce is governed by EU law with major economic tools such as interest rates and borrowing levels determined by the EU central bank! Also of course many of the regulations governing how commerce and industry is run emanate from EU directives.

The current boom stems directly from drastic cuts in its corporate tax rate to 12.5%by 2003, far below the US (39%!) or the EU(31%!), and consequently foreign corporate investment is enormous. This of course greatly http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/175.html"Irish EU relatives, but hey good for the Irish:

You are wrong; during the very austere times of the 80's Irish corporate tax rates were 0% for foreign investment rising to 10% after 10 years (though this was easily avoidable) so one could argue it was the increase in corporate rates that led to Ireland's economic growth. Though the true reasons were the ousting of the corrupt political elite of the day such as the prime minister Charles Haughey and his corrupt ministers. The fall out from that period of bribes and corruption is still continuing if you care to google on Mahon Tribunal. Back then Ireland truly practised economic self-interest with the rich creaming off every penny they could whilst the working class were left to fend for themselves on the basis of the working working class could subsidise the unemployed working class whilst the rich contributed absolutely nothing. Another major factor was membership of the EU which took a lot of the legislative powers away from the corrupt politicians thus limiting the damage they could do, whilst at the same time billions in EU structural funds were pumped into the economy (a socialist aid program). For a fat, ugly cow like Mary Harney to claim Ireland's economic success as an Irish political success is twisting the truth on it's head. Finally the collapse of influence of the ultra right-wing Catholic Church because of it's propensity for child molestation helped tremendously in creating a fairer society in Ireland.

First, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Private_health_insurance":

And any case there's no such thing as 'free' health care, the Irish pay for out it of taxes (income + VAT) as does anyone else with 'free health care. US also provides 'free' health care via medicaid / medicare / prescription drug benefit fiasco, etc.

Same in US.

No there is no such thing as free health care per se but when it is paid for out of the public purse it is considered free or if you wish to be pedantic free at point of use. I'm surprised the US has so much debate on uninsured people if they already have a national health system comparable to the European models
Private health care in Ireland buys you a place at the front of the queue in a semi-private or private room in the same hospitals with the same treatment by the same doctors as those who go public. That is the danger in having a private health system running in tandem with a public health system as the public health system subsidises the private patients which is an area I believe urgently needs addressing.

Nice. Aside from Trinity College Dublin, how good is it?

Excellent. One of the major drivers behind inward investment in Ireland was the high level of education.

The education system in Ireland is one of the best in the world according to the 2007 independent IMD World Competitiveness Report.

http://www.idaireland.com/home/index.aspx?id=97

All told, I'd say there's a fair argument that the US is more socialist in policy than Ireland at the moment.

I doubt it but regardless it is irrelevant to the point of this discussion. Ecomomist is arguing all socialist programs are bad for growth and so I've provided an example of a country with a plethora of social programs doing very well. If you also wish to add the US to the side of the balance sheet of socialist countries doing well then that's fine by me.

 

[Anttech]

I'll be more specific: You seem to imply by 'the Euro is Wiping the floor with the Dollar', that the Euro rising against the dollar is a good thing for the French? If so, how? If you are, say, a French wine maker hoping to export wine to the US which by '10 will be the largest wine market in the world, then your French wine becomes increasingly more expensive in the US market vs US made wines even though you never raised your price in Euros.

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=FT&date=20080113&id=8032509"

No, you came to that conclusion. I was arguing that the French are not as idiotic as "Economist" likes to think, when it comes to Economics. A strong currency is a good indicator of a strong economy, since it is a direct representation of how confident people are in the said currency and thus the economy. Are you trying to say that it isnt?

 

[JasonRox]

Such a persuasive argument. I'm glad you cleared that up.

My posts can't be long. My keyboard isn't working. That took like 10 minutes to type.

 

[Economist]

Laws like this what the ****? We only spoke of one so far! And that simple law for bookfs only is certainly not having an effect on the cost of living! Drop it already. You're point is nowhere near valid.

Actually, it's an illustration that this type of law harms consumers. Do you really think that this is the only law that harms consumers? You're right, if it was just one law than it wouldn't make a big deal, but when you sum up all of these rediculous laws, you'll be talking about a much larger harm to consumers.

 

[Economist]

Yes of course use per capita, otherwise one can draw a line around any group of countries you like and just add up GDP.

It is interesting Ireland comes up here as it was just took the highest http://www.heritage.org/Index/topten.cfm" Irish EU relatives, but hey good for the Irish:


First, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Private_health_insurance":

And any case there's no such thing as 'free' health care, the Irish pay for out it of taxes (income + VAT) as does anyone else with 'free health care. US also provides 'free' health care via medicaid / medicare / prescription drug benefit fiasco, etc.

Same in US.
Nice. Aside from Trinity College Dublin, how good is it?

All told, I'd say there's a fair argument that the US is more socialist in policy than Ireland at the moment.

Good points!

Especially the one about Ireland being relatively Laissez Faire, which was the point I was trying to make.

Or the heritage foundation simply likes to claim the most successful countries as their own

This is a good point. However, the economic freedom of the world reports are not done by heritage and I think they've had similar findings. I also believe that they have been doing reports for a number of years, and that their methodology is fairly consistent. If their methodology is fairly consistent than it wouldn't make a lot of sense that they are "choosing" successful countries and then calling them economically free. Rather, it's much more likely that economic freedom actually causes success.

 

[Art]

This is a good point. However, the economic freedom of the world reports are not done by heritage and I think they've had similar findings. I also believe that they have been doing reports for a number of years, and that their methodology is fairly consistent. If their methodology is fairly consistent than it wouldn't make a lot of sense that they are "choosing" successful countries and then calling them economically free. Rather, it's much more likely that economic freedom actually causes success.

Only if you ignore what I pointed out earlier

Bear in mind Irish industry and commerce is governed by EU law with major economic tools such as interest rates and borrowing levels determined by the EU central bank! Also of course many of the regulations governing how commerce and industry is run emanate from EU directives.

And I notice once again you have chosen to totally ignore all of the other points I made in rebuttal to mheslep's post.

 

[Economist]

Only if you ignore what I pointed out earlier And I notice once again you have chosen to totally ignore all of the other points I made in rebuttal to mheslep's post.

I read them. I don't know the details so I wasn't going to comment on them. The details you mentioned could be the cause, and then again maybe they aren't.

Also, just out of curiousity, why did you mention the central bank? I am confused, because having a central bank doens't really prove much in regards to economic freedom (as they don't have control of fiscal policy and most legislation). They control interest rates (or the money supply depending on the country, but even then it has the same effects) and that is generally the extent of their "power." I am not saying they aren't important. And I am not saying that one couldn't debate about whether there should be a central bank (many people already do argue about this). All I am saying is that I don't really see how it illustrates economic freedom?

When it comes to the EU law though, there must still be a good deal of room for individual countries to make decisions right? I mean, even within the EU there seems to be a range of policies on various issues, such as trade, labor market legislation, etc.

Plus you seem to be ignoring my point about the Economic Freedom of the World report. Why do we see a strong correlation between this report and prosperity? You're explanation about "cherry picking" countries doesn't seem that plausible for reasons mentioned above.

 

[Art]

I read them. I don't know the details so I wasn't going to comment on them. The details you mentioned could be the cause, and then again maybe they aren't.

Also, just out of curiousity, why did you mention the central bank? I am confused, because having a central bank doens't really prove much in regards to economic freedom (as they don't have control of fiscal policy and most legislation). They control interest rates (or the money supply depending on the country, but even then it has the same effects) and that is generally the extent of their "power." I am not saying they aren't important. And I am not saying that one couldn't debate about whether there should be a central bank (many people already do argue about this). All I am saying is that I don't really see how it illustrates economic freedom?

a) The ability to set interest rates is the single greatest tool in controlling credit and thus expenditure.
b) The EU central bank manages the exchange rate of the Euro by setting strict limits on member countries' deficit spending. This obviously greatly influences the discretionary measures adopted in each member's national budget. The relative size of the pie is the same for all with each country deciding how to slice it. France's main emphasis seems to be on health and transport, Ireland's on education but all socialist programs. Personally I think Ireland got their priorities right which is where the economic success came from. Even national budgets are subject to censure by the ECB if they believe a members national budget is inflationary or otherwise damaging to the Euro.
c) Only the ECB can authorise the issuing of bank notes
d) Corporation taxes are discretionary (at the moment) but it's swings and roundabouts again. Ireland has a lower corporation tax than the UK for example but Ireland's std VAT rate is 21% whereas the UK's is only 17.5%.

When it comes to the EU law though, there must still be a good deal of room for individual countries to make decisions right? I mean, even within the EU there seems to be a range of policies on various issues, such as trade, labor market legislation, etc.

No, which is why Britain opted out of the single currency and initially the social charter. They see it as surrendering their sovereignty.

Plus you seem to be ignoring my point about the Economic Freedom of the World report. Why do we see a strong correlation between this report and prosperity? You're explanation about "cherry picking" countries doesn't seem that plausible for reasons mentioned above.

If Ireland is a model of capitalism then so too are all the other members of the single currency club as they all play by the same rules and so any criticism levelled at France for it's perceived socialism is mute as if Ireland is capitalist they also must be capitalist.

Regarding trade France and Ireland like everyone else is regulated by the WTO agreements.

 

[Economist]

France's main emphasis seems to be on health and transport, Ireland's on education but all socialist programs.

Since when is public education a socialist program? Many people have made a strong case for public education on the basis of capitalism and economics, by talking about the externality effects. I don't completely buy into their argument, but nevertheless public education is not only consistent with socialism.

If Ireland is a model of capitalism then so too are all the other members of the single currency club as they all play by the same rules and so any criticism levelled at France for it's perceived socialism is mute as if Ireland is capitalist they also must be capitalist.

The devil's in the details. Even within the EU different countries still have different legislation, and therefore not all countries are identical.

Regarding trade France and Ireland like everyone else is regulated by the WTO agreements.

True, but it's still possible that one country would go above and beyond the WTO agreements by passing legislation. This would lead to one country still being more protectionist than the other.

 

[Art]

Since when is public education a socialist program? Many people have made a strong case for public education on the basis of capitalism and economics, by talking about the externality effects. I don't completely buy into their argument, but nevertheless public education is not only consistent with socialism.

Publicly funded mass education is indeed a socialist program. What else would you call it? This is nonsensical. Every time I prove a benefit from socialism you try to adopt it as part of capitalism. What happened to your libertarianism?

The devil's in the details. Even within the EU different countries still have different legislation, and therefore not all countries are identical.

I've already detailed the strictures they work under which limit divergence.

True, but it's still possible that one country would go above and beyond the WTO agreements by passing legislation. This would lead to one country still being more protectionist than the other.

How do you go above and beyond free trade To legislate for something less results in censure and fines from the WTO with eventual expulsion if you don't conform.

 

[Economist]

Publicly funded mass education is indeed a socialist program. What else would you call it? This is nonsensical. Every time I prove a benefit from socialism you try to adopt it as part of capitalism. What happened to your libertarianism?

What happened to my libertariansim? Actually, nothing as I personally agree with a privatized school system. But "my libertarianims" is beside the point.

I was trying to point out that many people have actually made a case for public schooling on the grounds of positive externalities (which is hardly socialsim, but rather a lack of all encompassing property rights). Read Milton Friedman's book "Capitalism and Freedom" were he lays out a strong case for public education that has nothing to do with socialist ideas (and then goes onto make a case against his own argument). Not to mention, Thomas Jefferson made a case/argument for public schools that is very similar to the argument Friedman was making. Again, I would hardly label that argument as a "socialist" argument for public education.

I love how you state "every time I prove a benefit from socialism you try to adopt it as part of capitalism." First, all I said was that public education is not only consistent with socialism. Second, I would hardly say that public education is "a benefit." In the US the public school system is filled with all kinds of problems which lead to pretty bad results. Even worse, the education problem is particularly bad for those who need it the most, namely children from poor families. Again, providing horrible education to the poor is hardly consistent with stated socialist goals.

How do you go above and beyond free trade To legislate for something less results in censure and fines from the WTO with eventual expulsion if you don't conform.

So you are telling me that all members of WTO have the exact same trade policies?

 

[Art]

The whole basis of socialism is positive externalities i.e. actions taken for the greater good which is why I have written numerous posts extolling the economic positive externalities of socialist policies in Ireland.

All countries in the EU and the US have signed up to the same bi-lateral trade agreement with the WTO so in the context of this thread the answer is yes they all play by the same rules. Policy differences are limited to areas such as who a country or bloc will or will not trade with (sanctions etc.) but if they do trade it is under the rules of the WTO. Eg. France and Ireland cannot have different trade rules for dealing with the US.

Developing countries have different agreements which may include protectionism.

No country is allowed to break the legally binding contracts signed through the WTO who also arbitrate over any dispute between members.

To be clear which of these programs (if any) all of which have positive externalities do you consider socialist?

Subsidised transport
Free at point of use health care
Gov't funded education
Govt ownership of water and power utilities.
Gov't ownership of mass transit systems
Social welfare

 

[Gokul43201]

So, if Amazon were sued by an Irish union of booksellers, would they lose? Have they been sued? If not, why not?

 

[Art]

So, if Amazon were sued by an Irish union of booksellers, would they lose? Have they been sued? If not, why not?

Amazon haven't ever offered free delivery to Ireland so the issue hasn't arisen. To be honest I can't say with any certainty how the Irish gov't would react though imo I doubt they would follow the French course. The French do tend to have very protectionist attitudes especially regarding America these days.

I mentioned in an earlier post there is very little information regarding the facts surrounding the case in France but I tentatively assume the book sellers won on the grounds Amazon were selling below cost which is a breach of WTO trade rules. All of this is assuming that Amazon in France are not registered as a company there because then of course it would be an internal matter.

If that is not the case and the French are simply applying protectionism then the US gov't can bring the case as a trade dispute to the WTO for a ruling which France would presumably lose and be penalised for (unless there is something written into US - EU trade agreements exempting books from free trade).

These disputes happen all the time and a key role of the WTO is to ensure they do not escalate into a full blown trade war.

For example

Congress Passes Bill Ending WTO Export Tax Break Dispute with EU
Pending EU sanctions against United States expected to be withdrawn

By Bruce Odessey
Washington File Staff Writer

Washington -- The Senate has given final passage to a tax-cut bill that includes repeal of corporate tax breaks that the World Trade Organization (WTO) has ruled are illegal export subsidies.

Passage of the provision ends a long-standing trade dispute, and a European Union (EU) official has indicated pending retaliatory trade sanctions against the United States would be suspended.

The Senate passed the five-year, $70 billion tax bill 54-44 late May 11, a day after the House of Representatives passed it 244-185. President Bush has indicated he will sign the bill, which includes tax cuts he long has sought.

At issue are remnant tax breaks from the Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) and the successor Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act (ETI). After the WTO ruled in cases brought by the EU that those credits violated a subsidies agreement, Congress repealed nearly all of them over a two-year transition ending in 2006.

Congress left in place, however, a few tax breaks that were included in binding contracts made before September 17, 2003, including contracts made by U.S. aircraft manufacturer Boeing.

In yet another challenge brought by the EU, the WTO ruled that both the two-year transition and the excluded credits were not in compliance with the earlier dispute-settlement decisions. The provision in the tax bill would not alter the two-year transition but would repeal the exclusions for the binding contracts.

"I want to thank lawmakers in the House and Senate for their work on this legislation, and especially for including the repeal of the grandfathering provisions on the foreign sales corporation/extraterritorial income regimes," U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman said. "It means the U.S. has taken the steps necessary to comply with its WTO obligations in this matter."

According to published reports, EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson announced May 11 that the EU would suspend the sanctions, $2.4 billion additional duties on U.S. exports, that were scheduled to take effect May 16.

https://www.physicsforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1575958

Edit - It seems the French book-sellers union brought the action against Amazon under their 1981 Lang Law which forbids the discounting of books by more than 5%. This law has apparently already been challenged twice before in the European Court of Justice and upheld each time so Amazon's intended appeal against the ruling looks doomed in Europe anyway.

 

[NeoDevin]

I don't know if anyone has posted this yet, but here is the article from NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/idg/IDG_002570DE00740E18002573AF005B04A4.html

 

[mheslep]

Bear in mind Irish industry and commerce is governed by EU law with major economic tools such as interest rates and borrowing levels determined by the EU central bank! Also of course many of the regulations governing how commerce and industry is run emanate from EU directives.

Yes Ire. is a member of the EU. Its also is drastically different from the big EU economies on business tax policy.

You are wrong; during the very austere times of the 80's Irish corporate tax rates were 0% for foreign investment rising to 10% after 10 years (though this was easily avoidable) so one could argue it was the increase in corporate rates that led to Ireland's economic growth.

The domestic, in country, business tax rate back then was in fact 50% with some caveats.The '0%' was a tax exemption on exports only, going back as early as '56. The EU complained after Ireland joined and the '10%' tax was later applied to manufacturing only in 1980. In 1997 it was announced that beginning in 2003 the rate for all corporations not covered under the earlier deals would become 12.5%. Similarly the capital gains rate was cut from 40 to 20% in '97. As a consequence Ireland has become a world class tax haven and http://www.heritage.org/research/worldwidefreedom/bg1945.cfm" :

Intel, IBM, Hewlett-Packard, and Dell—all have major activities, employing 4,000 to 5,000 people each in Ireland. Intel has invested over $6 billion in four wafer fabrication plants on its largest site outside the U.S., which is also a launch site for its most advanced microprocessors. ...Nine of the world’s top 10 pharmaceutical companies and 12 of the world’s top 15 medical products companies have substantial operations in Ireland serving global markets.

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_07_4_burnham.pdf" for the Irish boom include fiscal budget cuts by the 1987 Haughey government with got the defecit spending under control, deregulation e.g. on the Ireland -UK air routes, and the investment in the Regional Technical Colleges.

Though the true reasons were the ousting of the corrupt political elite of the day such as the prime minister Charles Haughey and his corrupt ministers. The fall out from that period of bribes and corruption is still continuing if you care to google on Mahon Tribunal. Back then Ireland truly practised economic self-interest with the rich creaming off every penny they could whilst the working class were left to fend for themselves on the basis of the working working class could subsidise the unemployed working class whilst the rich contributed absolutely nothing. Another major factor was membership of the EU which took a lot of the legislative powers away from the corrupt politicians thus limiting the damage they could do, whilst at the same time billions in EU structural funds were pumped into the economy (a socialist aid program).

http://www.heritage.org/research/worldwidefreedom/bg1945.cfm"

Some external observers are inclined to ascribe a large part of Ireland’s success in the 1990s to EU economic transfers, but their role can be overstated. EU membership has been very positive for Ireland, providing market access, enhancing Ireland’s national status, and contributing to the budget. While net receipts from the EU averaged 4 percent of GDP over an extended period, studies have shown that these contributions added about 0.5 percent per year to the growth rate, while the growth has averaged over 6.5 percent per year since 1987... Comparable transfers were made to other poorer EU states, such as Greece, Portugal, and Spain, but none of these countries achieved similar growth.

For a fat, ugly cow like Mary Harney to claim Ireland's economic success as an Irish political success is twisting the truth on it's head. Finally the collapse of influence of the ultra right-wing Catholic Church because of it's propensity for child molestation helped tremendously in creating a fairer society in Ireland.

Perhaps all of these are good things (corrupt politicians tossed, Church influence tossed) but how is any of responsible for increasing the GDP? How does this positively generate wealth? Do you assert that they stole it all previously? Someone still has to create jobs and hire people. For that matter, given your stated distaste for local Irish government, why would you have so much faith in a much farther removed EU government as having the power to provide prosperity?

I doubt it but regardless it is irrelevant to the point of this discussion. Ecomomist is arguing all socialist programs are bad for growth and so I've provided an example of a country with a plethora of social programs doing very well. If you also wish to add the US to the side of the balance sheet of socialist countries doing well then that's fine by me.

My point of all this was to highlight the large difference in economic policy between France the relatively laissez faire policies of Ireland. I've provided the particulars in the above posts; the consequence is that France's GDP/PPP/capita ranking is now 23rd in the world and falling.

 

[WheelsRCool]

As long as France continues to believe in socialism and that governmetn creates jobs, corporations are evil and destroy jobs, that economic growth is bad, that if you are a young person and get a job the business should not be allowed to fire you for the first few years even if you are a complete slacker, that ultra-high taxation is good, etc...France will continue to have a very lousy economy.

So will Germany.

I think pretty much the only thing most of Europe can even sell at a profit these days are cars, and that is likely going to change soon.

 

[Anttech]

As long as France continues to believe in socialism and that governmetn creates jobs, corporations are evil and destroy jobs, that economic growth is bad, that if you are a young person and get a job the business should not be allowed to fire you for the first few years even if you are a complete slacker, that ultra-high taxation is good, etc...France will continue to have a very lousy economy.

So will Germany.

I think pretty much the only thing most of Europe can even sell at a profit these days are cars, and that is likely going to change soon.

At least you arent attempting to vale your bigotry.

 

[Art]

Yes Ire. is a member of the EU. Its also is drastically different from the big EU economies on business tax policy.

The domestic, in country, business tax rate back then was in fact 50% with some caveats.The '0%' was a tax exemption on exports only, going back as early as '56. The EU complained after Ireland joined and the '10%' tax was later applied to manufacturing only in 1980. In 1997 it was announced that beginning in 2003 the rate for all corporations not covered under the earlier deals would become 12.5%. Similarly the capital gains rate was cut from 40 to 20% in '97. As a consequence Ireland has become a world class tax haven and http://www.heritage.org/research/worldwidefreedom/bg1945.cfm" :

Which is a long winded way of saying oops you were right they didn't decrease taxes on multi-nationals they increased it.

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_07_4_burnham.pdf" for the Irish boom include fiscal budget cuts by the 1987 Haughey government with got the defecit spending under control, deregulation e.g. on the Ireland -UK air routes, and the investment in the Regional Technical Colleges.

Spending was reduced by EU mandate - deregulation of the Ireland-UK route came about through EU competition laws and I have already given the Irish gov't credit for it's investment in education.

http://www.heritage.org/research/worldwidefreedom/bg1945.cfm"

This is mostly a crock of **** from a right wing rag.

Perhaps all of these are good things (corrupt politicians tossed, Church influence tossed) but how is any of responsible for increasing the GDP? How does this positively generate wealth? Do you assert that they stole it all previously? Someone still has to create jobs and hire people. For that matter, given your stated distaste for local Irish government, why would you have so much faith in a much farther removed EU government as having the power to provide prosperity?

Simple really when workers were no longer paying 72% of their wages in income tax and nat'l insurance they felt less inclined to emigrate and more inclined to work and add wealth at home. The article you quoted massively understates the contribution of the EU structural funds to Ireland's development. For example a key problem in attracting overseas companies to locate in Ireland was the abysmal transport system. The EU paid for roads to be constructed linking major cities such as Dublin and Cork with, for the first time, something better than a dirt track.
I imagine one reason why other countries which received structural funds haven't fared so well is because they are far larger and so the grants wouldn't make such an impact on their transport systems.

As for theft, to give just one example, on interest earned on illegal overseas accounts alone the rich evaded £1 billion in taxes during this time, which for the tiny economy in Ireland was a HUGE amount. BTW when this came to light instead of punishing them they were offered tax amnesties if they promised to be good in the future and as they weren't they were offered a second amnesty and then a third. So yes Ireland was far, far better off when most of the critical decision making was taken away from the criminals running the country and handed over to the EU.

My point of all this was to highlight the large difference in economic policy between France the relatively laissez faire policies of Ireland. I've provided the particulars in the above posts; the consequence is that France's GDP/PPP/capita ranking is now 23rd in the world and falling.

And my point is France is not the basket case it is depicted as and that the problems they do have are more to do with their xenophobia than socialism as Ireland under it's commitment to the EU Social Charter provides very similar socialist programs as France does.

 

[WheelsRCool]

At least you arent attempting to vale your bigotry.

Actually it's called the truth. I don't get why stating facts about the European economies always gets criticized as bigotry. If you tax at ultra-high rates, have a lot of regulations over your businesses, pay for people not to work, etc...your economy is not going to fair very well.

 

[Economist]

Actually it's called the truth. I don't get why stating facts about the European economies always gets criticized as bigotry. If you tax at ultra-high rates, have a lot of regulations over your businesses, pay for people not to work, etc...your economy is not going to fair very well.

As some one said in this thread earlier, "There is no free lunch."

 

[Matthieu]

Where does the govment get it's money to pay for everyones healthcare?

medecines' cost is fixed by the government through negociations with laboratories. It's a deal, we buy hundred of thousands of your medicaments but you make us a good price. It's a fair deal since laboratories still make huge benefits from the social wealthare yet they would make more if they didn't have such constrait, the return being mostly (it's not totaly) free healthcare.

 

[DrClapeyron]

EDIT: Wrong Topic

 

[Matthieu]

France has a higher rate of unemployment, but this is based on people age 15-64. In France people usually retire by 50. That is part of the equation. We have more employment, but a lot of our workers are older people. I would guess that may also play a role in productivity. A younger stronger and sharper worker might be a lot more productive than a worker who is going senile.

In order to get full retirement in France you have to pay for your retreat 40 years long. In order to retire at 50 you would have had to start working at 10.

 

[denverdoc]

medecines' cost is fixed by the government through negociations with laboratories. It's a deal, we buy hundred of thousands of your medicaments but you make us a good price. It's a fair deal since laboratories still make huge benefits from the social wealthare yet they would make more if they didn't have such constrait, the return being mostly (it's not totaly) free healthcare.

In my practice many have to buy meds from Canada--often costs them less than the co-pay here for a branded name with no generic equivalent in the US. Health care is never free--its just a matter of detail as to how it is subsidized. I know too many americans who have no recourse but to be ill. I help whom I can, but I need income as well.

 

[Economist]

medecines' cost is fixed by the government through negociations with laboratories. It's a deal, we buy hundred of thousands of your medicaments but you make us a good price. It's a fair deal since laboratories still make huge benefits from the social wealthare yet they would make more if they didn't have such constrait, the return being mostly (it's not totaly) free healthcare.

Well, it may be more complicated than this. If the government gets a better price, this maybe due to the fact that the government would be a monopsony (a single buyer) in this case. Just to let you know, a monopsony acts much like a monopoly because they have a large degree of market power. In other words, the government may "underpay" for such medication. Now, I'm not asking you guys to feel sorry for pharmaceutical companies for being underpaid. But I am asking you to think about the unintended consequences of such policy, as it would likely decrease innovation in the medical field. My understanding is that the US produces a very disproportionate percentage of new medication in the world. This may be due to other countries restrictive policies in the medical field (such as intellectual property laws). Luckily for many other countries, they are allowed to "piggyback" of the US discoveries because they can then purchase medication from US pharmaceutical companies. Sometimes I wonder how good medical care would be if all developed countries innovated as much as the US?

 

[ShawnD]

Economist, you've clearly never worked for a private company if you believe selling to a single customer is bad. Companies willingly sell bulk product at huge discounts because it assures that the product will move faster. Right now I work for a pharmaceutical company that produces a cream for soaking drugs into skin, and our biggest customers are warehousing companies like McKesson, Kohl and Frisch, and http://www.amerisourcebergen.com/cp/1/. Those 3 warehouse companies make up at least 95% of our sales. One product we sell to those warehouse companies is a cream that comes in 6-packs, which we sell to them for $48, which is $8/tube. We sell that exact same product on the internet for $20/tube. Even at less than half the price, the $8 tubes we sell to the warehouse companies make a hell of a lot more money than the $20 tubes since it's a different order of magnitude in terms of how many we sell.

That same thing applies to drug companies. Instead of selling to 10000 places in the US, they sell it to just 1 place in France - the government. Just put a different shipping label for different areas of France you're sending to, and all of the bills go to to the government of France. It's exactly the same as selling bulk cream to McKesson Logistics and letting them deal with each individual London Drugs, Shoppers Drug Mart, Walmart, etc.

 

[Economist]

Economist, you've clearly never worked for a private company if you believe selling to a single customer is bad. Companies willingly sell bulk product at huge discounts because it assures that the product will move faster. Right now I work for a pharmaceutical company that produces a cream for soaking drugs into skin, and our biggest customers are warehousing companies like McKesson, Kohl and Frisch, and http://www.amerisourcebergen.com/cp/1/. Those 3 warehouse companies make up at least 95% of our sales. One product we sell to those warehouse companies is a cream that comes in 6-packs, which we sell to them for $48, which is $8/tube. We sell that exact same product on the internet for $20/tube. Even at less than half the price, the $8 tubes we sell to the warehouse companies make a hell of a lot more money than the $20 tubes since it's a different order of magnitude in terms of how many we sell.

That same thing applies to drug companies. Instead of selling to 10000 places in the US, they sell it to just 1 place in France - the government. Just put a different shipping label for different areas of France you're sending to, and all of the bills go to to the government of France. It's exactly the same as selling bulk cream to McKesson Logistics and letting them deal with each individual London Drugs, Shoppers Drug Mart, Walmart, etc.

Check out on the research and literature on monopsonies then.

 

[denverdoc]

What I found amusing and pathetic is that under the new Medicare Part D plan states have been relieved of any kind of monopsizing, which in the past has saved bucket loads of money--both to the state gov'ts and the consumers. More corporate welfare under Med D and bunches of Economists to defend the decision. That benefits took an overall hit, unnoticed except by those affected and those that service them.

 

[Matthieu]

But I am asking you to think about the unintended consequences of such policy, as it would likely decrease innovation in the medical field. My understanding is that the US produces a very disproportionate percentage of new medication in the world. This may be due to other countries restrictive policies in the medical field (such as intellectual property laws). Luckily for many other countries, they are allowed to "piggyback" of the US discoveries because they can then purchase medication from US pharmaceutical companies. Sometimes I wonder how good medical care would be if all developed countries innovated as much as the US?

Not really. It's medications made everywhere in the world that gets this discount. In other word the market is the same for French or American or British medications. French medications are exported and French laboratories get important incomes from the US too so our pharmacetical industry, one of the world's largest, does not suffer from this.

 

[ShawnD]

Check out on the research and literature on monopsonies then.

Easy. UHC in Canada and other countries. Doctors are all private but their only customer is the government. It's not perfect, but it would be a lie to say it's a disaster. How about all city work? The roads in my city are all built by private companies, paid with government funds. The US military is all private created stuff, paid for by government. Is the US military a piece of garbage? Is healthcare in France garbage? Are the roads in my city garbage? IMO, the answer to all three of those is no. The US military has excellent equipment, France has excellent healthcare, and my city has excellent roads.

Government contracts are significant, so companies compete like crazy to get them. Competition is the one thing that makes capitalism work.
Having things too spread out leads to gross inefficiencies and collusion. An HMO is arguably a form of collusion, and we all know how bad those are. Insurance, hospitals, doctors, and drug companies all banding together to be your one and only provider. If you're sick, you are only covered by an HMO hospital. That total lack of choice eliminates competition and it ends up hurting capitalism whereas people under UHC with cheap drugs have the freedom to go to whichever hospital is closest, whichever clinic is closest, get whichever prescription drug is cheapest.

Having the government fight on your side also helps the people who are unable to fight. Somebody with cancer or HIV is not in a position to say "oh well the price is unreasonable, so I won't buy this". We aren't talking about a computer or a TV where you can simply not buy it. We're talking about something you need to live. Prescription drugs are almost like a kind of extortion where the company says "pay up or die" and you're not strong enough to stand up and say no, because you will die if you do. It would be ridiculous to ask for free drugs, but it's not ridiculous to stand up and tell the companies they need to compete if they want your business. They can't just win by default because they're the only game in town and they have a complete monopoly on drugs (that's what a drug patent is), we need some way to keep them in check.