From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 19:51:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.005140.15584@news.columbia.edu>, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
(Gary L Dare) writes:

|>garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:
|>>ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:

|>>You mean borrow-and-spend Republicans. Bill Clinton also wants to 
|>>socailize health care like all the rest of the industrialized world.
|>
|>"Socialists" of the pro-business parties in Canada, France and Germany
|>gave those countries the second-most capitalist medical systems in the
|>world.  You wouldn't know it in America if you've never visited there or
|>read about it in their newspapers/magazines nor talked to their people.
|>
|>... instead, you'd be lobbying for pseudo-socialized medicine via HMO
|>(even Clinton is guilty here).

The important feature of a socialist medical system is that it be free.

In Germany the system is that I am required by law to have medical insurance. In
effect it is simply a tax because the insurance rate is a proportion of my
salary (9%) of which my employer pays half.

Although the introduction of a private insurance company is in my view
unnecessary, inefficient and undesirable I fail to see that it is a serious
object to considering the system to be a socialist medical system.

The system is inefficient by the way because in order to convince me that they
are doing something for me, Techniker Krankenhaus send me regualr mailings of
cheap tat, a bit like what happens when you join the readers digest mailing list
I suppose.


Certainly there is no comparison with the US system, either before or after
Clintons reforms. The fact remains that the country that spends least on health
per person amongst the G7 nations is the only one that offers free medical care
to all on demand. It will be intersting to see how long it takes for the US to
recognise the potential savings and follow Britains example.

On this level BTW it is important to differentiate the current discussion within
the UK to the extent that additional resources should be made avaliable. This
argument basicaly revolves arround asking whether instead of buying Trident ($15
billion) or having more tax cuts a few extra billion should not go towards
medical care.

Since the last set of tax cuts saturated the consumer spending market leading to
house price inflation there are few UK ecconomists who consider that further tax
cuts would give any benefit to anyone. Whereas the $10billion given away in tax
cuts produced an ecconomic boom producing electoral advantages, the downside has
been the resulting crash and a projected $50 billion deficit for next year.

One major problem the right make is in assuming that resources are entirely
elastic, that is that by decreasing taxation living standards will rise
proportionaly. The fact is that consumers compete for different resources to the
public sector which principaly absorbs labour.

At the moment the right is working in a kind of derranged anti-thesis to Kensyan
ecconomics. Whereas Keynes said spend in recessions *and* *save* *in* *boom*
*periods*, the right go on a spending spree when there is a boom and tighten up
in recessions.

Just wonder how long it will take people to realise that Regan/Bush cut the
intrinsic value of the dollar in half and that there will have to be an eventual
readjustment. When inflation tops twenty percent in the next few years, blame
Regan and Bush.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc