From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Clinto and Space Funding
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:27:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BvEMCo.2Kw.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

> I would suggest one area that need serious consideration are lung cancer
> subsidies (ie. the money given to the tobacco producers which goes to subsidise
> lung cancer all over the world)
>

I agree. The government should at the same time stop all subsidies to anti
smoking organizations. Smokers should pay very large (market and risked based)  
insurance premiums for their health insurance, commensurate with the extra risk  
they have chosen.

(I wonder... will there have to be smoking and non-smoking space settlements? :-)

> and other agricultural subsidies. At least
> Europe ios making some moves on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), I have
> seen no sign of similar moves in the US (though I may have missed them). 


Strange, I was under the impression that GATT broke down because there was a  
refusal to end subsidies on the part of the EC. I agree that US could hardly do  
better for itself than to totally end ALL farm subsidies for all purposes. There'd  
be cheaper and more food for the third world. Not to mention the knock on effects  
because the government:
	a) subsidizes farms, keeping them below market efficiency
	b) pays to keep food prices up and production down
	c) pays the poor so they can afford food at the prices caused by a and b
	d) and the taxpayer gets to pay for a - c PLUS paying more for groceries

If we could build O'Neill cylinders the size of continents for farming I expect we  
would see the government paying to build them and claiming that it was to end  
hunger on Earth. After building them the farmers would be paid to not grow food
so that "the vital resource of family farms" could be protected. You would hear  
both from the mouth of the same politician.

> a great deal of wasted GNP can be sorted out by changing your ridiculous legal
> system (70% of lawers in the world are in the US, and all earning lots of
> money that could go to real commercial use elsewhere),
>

Again, totally agreed. The tort system abandoned the ideas of simply "making an  
injured party whole" where "whole" was commenserate with damages and  
responsibility was assigned to the one at fault rather than by search for 

a patsy to pay the bill. This soft hearted nonsense started in the early 60's and
has grown into a monster. This is a problem for aerospace as well. It is the  
reason why small cheap aircraft for general aviation are nearly gone from the US  
market. A Cessna manufacturer is responsible for the aircraft for its entire  
service life. I once owned part of a 30 year old Cessna. We sold it. It is STILL  
flying. And Cessna's insurance still has to cover liability to their "deep  
pockets" if some idiot figures out a way to put Jet A into the fuel tank.  
(Personally I'd like to think of it as evolution in action)

> and getting your medical
> system sorted. You can lambast the UK and other Eropean countries for having
> doctrinally unsound socialised (gasp!) medical systems, but the fact is *our
> health services are ****cheaper***** in terms of GNP than yours.

Having experienced both, I prefer the US one. In three years here I have yet to  
recieve a call from my doctor. Wellness programs are unheard of. And if you need  
certain classes of operations, you are best off flying to the US and paying for it  
because you might be dead before your turn in the queue comes up. There ARE NO  
QUEUES in the US. When a government controls the allocation of resources, they are  
either under or over supplied.

Oh, and my blue cross/blue shield were job benefits at CMU. And even if taken as a  
cost on my paycheck there versus here, they cost less (for far better and more  
aggressive service) than the amount taken out for National Health Service (NHS) in  
the UK. As long as you don't get too sick and just do things like have babies, NHS  
APPEARS to work quite nicely. [In the US babies could be delivered by midwives or  
home birth at much lower cost and equal safety if the AMA wasn't battling so hard  
to put them out of business by manipulating state legislatures.]

> The legal and
> medical issues are in some sense linked too because fo the degree of litigation
> in US medicine.
> 


Very, very true. This in conjunction with the effects of Medicare and the strength  
of the American Medical Association (to control the supply of doctors and to  
manipulate regulation to their own financial interest) have made medical bills  
climb to astronomical hieghts. I'm barely old enough to remember a time as a child  
in the US when a small town doctor came by your house, charged small fees, did  
large amounts of the work for no payment and was no better off than most of his  
(they were all male) patients. Those who couldn't pay simply never recieved a bill  
or only recieved a token one. No one in our town lacked for medical care and it  
was the best available at the time. There was NO government assistance on medical  
expenses whatever, and it seemed to work quite nicely. Oh, and I might add that in  
much later years I discovered that according to postpriori published numbers my  
family had been "below the poverty line" at that time. What a joke...

Oh, and catastrophic coverage was handled by blue cross or in worst case, by  
charity. Hospitals and doctors NEVER turned anyone away.

If you want more detailed information on this sort of issue, contact
	Russell Earl Whitaker
	whitaker@eternity.demon.co.uk

He can tell you what publications are available from the Libertarian Alliance in  
London.

Unmucking the legal system and placing responsibility where it belongs and to the  
degree with which it belongs are important issues. A society that tries for Total  
Safety and which reimburses people for an accident, no matter what level of  
stupidity was required for said accident, is not going to be a society that  
pioneers the way to the stars.

It may, however, create a fair number of individuals who are ready to run  
screaming from said society upon the first opportunity to leave the planet.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton