(V): IF you take a contract that requires you to have a fixed minimal term as part of that contract you are obliged under law to honour that contract



Thats true, I have not argued against that... except to say that the very first word is "if", but there is nobody to force me to make this contract agreement

But with socialism, I dont have a choice to opt out, the government takes my money, like it or not. You aften talk about how under your system of health care, people can get private if they desire and can afford to do so.... BUT, that doesnt negate their tax obligation that goes towards the social government care, now does it

So its not really a "choice", an either or, if you want private, then you have to pay for both

With your contract, I always have a choice to not enter that contract... see the difference?

(V): And that part of what you posted from that link, was just a part and as such a distortion of the whole link, and therefore again... FALSE and INACCURATE.


It was your link., and you said it explained your point, but how can you say it is not accurate when it says that smaller governments created economic growth faster than larger governments??????

No I havent read the whole thing, but you can find me the part where it gives the exceptions, I guess you must have read that somewhere, it should be easy for you to site the exact part for me?

(V): You may convince yourself that you have the best of all worlds, socialized government where nobody gets left behind, still with great economic growth, and excellent facilities, and somehow small government all at the same time, and if so, and it is all so grand, then why doesnt every socialist liberal in this country just move over there!

Czuch: you will never win ROFLMBO

Bernice: Thanks.. at least now I am not the only one left wondering

Czuch: I've scratched my remaining hair out!

Artful Dodger:

silence is golden....until the "stuff" hits the fan hahahahahahaha

Czuch: I kind of admire you for your relentless effort to illustrate that Saturday is followed by Sunday despite the severe resistance.

Pedro Martínez: I know its a boring read...

Czuch: Which kind of socialism are you referring to? As in some models (hence the point of posting the different types of 'socialism' there is no central government, no-one as such can force you to do anything!! And no... there are here certain opt out's where a person can choose not to be tied to certain government schemes. And in respect of healthcare.. If the person over here chooses, they can take control of their own budget.

And isn't it part of everyday life (even in a strictly capitalist economic society) that you will have to take out contracts? You have a choice as to which, but you will have to take out a contract. Eg.. electric, water, gas. Unless you want to live on a desert Island that is.

"No I havent read the whole thing, but you can find me the part where it gives the exceptions,"

I did. And posted it.

"and it is all so grand, then why doesnt every socialist liberal in this country just move over there!"

Quite a few people do move here from America, we also have many from Europe, India, Pakistan, Africa, Asia, etc trying to get to live in this country. A certain amount legal.. and a certain amount illegal. All lorries coming from France, etc to the UK have to be checked the problem of illegal immigrants has gotten so bad. Luckily the French (seeing as that is the main route) are working with us to stop the problem.

And I suggest you look at the recent victory of the Gurkha's and Joanna Lumley over the UK gov and it's previous stance regarding the right to live in the UK of said Gurkha's.

... And as for winning... spoken like a political party.. they think winning makes them fit to run a country... it doesn't.
... And it would help if you didn't skip posts

Here's the bit you skipped...

"..............In the real world, governments may not undertake activities based on their rate of return and comparative advantage. Small government by itself is not an asset. When a small government fails to focus on and efficiently provide core functions such as protection of persons and property, a legal system that helps with the enforcement of contacts, and a stable monetary regime, there is no reason to believe that it will promote economic growth. This has been (and still is) the case in many less developed countries. Governments -- including those that are small -- can be expected to register slow or even negative rates of economic growth when these core functions are poorly performed. Unless proper adjustment is made for how well the core functions are performed, the empirical relationship between size of government and economic growth is likely to be a loose one, particularly when the analysis involves a diverse set of economies."

IE the ideal government is an efficient one. The ideal state for a country is an efficient system. As long as there is politics the probability of efficiency is not good, as everyone is arguing rather then working together. IE saying it's a bad idea when it is not, just because of politics.

I have been reading some posts about "small government". Of course, a look at any industrialized (or for that matter most developing) countries today will show that small government is a myth in the sense that all modern governments have enourmous bureacratic structures designed to manage just about every aspect of essential economic and social services. In most industrialized countries the government is the biggest employer and in North America millions of people earn a living working for the government. Many people who don't work for the government work in companies that have contracts providing products or services for the government.

I noticed that people who take a stand against "big government" sometimes do it because they want to see the government shrink and provide citizens with "tax breaks". Sarah Palin is a good example. In some of her speeches she lauds small government and tax breaks. I will not generalize about Republicans (or Conservatives in Canada and the UK) but sometimes I hear similar rethoric from "right wing" parties.

I have been looking for statistics that clearly show whether smaller government indeed is more efficient. I think the problem is that "small government" is a relative term. Most western governments today have more cumbersome bureacracies than governments 50 or 100 years ago, and comparing rates of economic growth might not be possible. A more fair comparison might be "economic stability", meaning how well our modern, larger governments cope with an economic crisis.

As for Socialism, it is a relative term. Today we have a centralized banking system with laws and regulations enforced by a central government agency that imposes interest rates and controls the money supply. If you had told people 100 years ago that we would have an agency like the Federal Reserve, they would have said that you were a Communist of some kind. It would have been an unacceptable "Socialist" idea, as would have been economic planning over an entire presidency term. Soviets had "5-year plans", and western governments now have similar long-term economic plans. Ideas that were "socialist" become acceptable, out of economic necessity.

I can think of examples where "small" government has succeeded and failed. Perhaps a better government is one that is "efficient" and "balanced". You can cut taxes and reduce bureacracy. It might seem good, as long as you are not leaving thousands unemployed and slowing down the economy. Then you can increase government size and try to improve services. It might seem good as long as you don't go into deficit and increase public debt. In a perfect world, the government would balance spending and improve the efficiency of services provided. Of course, the world is not perfect!

Übergeek 바둑이: The Conservatives over here are a curious bunch. I get concerned at the moment when they say that they agree with someone who says 'X' when the government says 'Y' yet come to the crunch and criticise the government for not agreeing with statement 'X'... yet will not give a 100% backing to statement 'X'. I get concerned when they say (as with any opposition) that they want to change an system resulting in years of work and billions of money gone to waste just because there have been teething problems... and the end take 'z' more years and spend 'z' more billions in the process... Stranger still, that the problem being resolved has at some level root in Maggie's era.

They mean well... Just they play the politics for the masses game too much. But labour and the other party's can be just as bad. And yes... '5 year plans' are common here.

As to efficient government.. the recent expenses uproar and the rules that were abused were again changed in Maggie's era, and although da leader says anyone who took the mickey will lose their heads... the vote that would make it easier to prosecute MP's lost out.

I think the MP's think we are that easily bought. .... bad mistake.

Ah yes.... tax cuts.. the opiate for the masses.



T here
A in't
N o
S uch
T hing
A s
F ree
L unch

Even eating takes energy.

(V): provide core functions such as protection of persons and property, a legal system that helps with the enforcement of contacts, and a stable monetary regime,


I have already agreed to all this, but where does it say that this government must also supply health care and education and other social functions that you endorse?

In response to this: "where does it say that this government must also supply health care and education and other social functions that you endorse?"

I think it is easy for us to forget where or why certain ideas come from, and how it was that modern society came to be. There is always some catalyst for change, and more often than not the motivating factor is some catastrophic social change that threatens all of society.

A good example is the French Revolution. James Mill, a famous Scottish philosopher of the early 19th century, noted that Europe needed the French Revolution, not because the revolution was good, but because people should realize that there should never be another one.

The French Revolution was a catalyst for change because it made the aristrocracy realize what would happen if the working class continued to be held without political power. The aristocracy was forced to give up some power and allow the merchant class (the early capitalists) to gain political power. It also allowed the birth of what would later become our modern representative democracies.

Then in 1917 the Russian Revolution occurred, and the capitalists who had monopolised a lot of the wealth and power of the world realized that capitalism had many serious problems. The Great Depression catalized the belief among the working classes that capitalism was failing to improve the lives of many working class people. Communism was becoming the ideology of choice among the working classes and the unions that represented their interests. In 1945 Stalin's Red Army occupied half of Europe and in 1949 China had its revolution. By then half of the world's land area and half of its people were under Communist rule.

Western economists looked at the problem and realized that high unemployment, runaway inflation and lack of services for the working class were fuelling Communist ideology and plunging capitalism into one economic crisis after the other. It was John Maynard Keynes, the great capitalist economist, who proposed "interventionist" policies in which the state would diminish the effects of bad economic cycles by controlling interest rates, the money supply and investment in public works.

Other economists, alarmed by the effects of poverty and the radicalization of the working class, championed "welfare capitalism" as a way to improve people's lives without destroying economic growth or plunging into revolution. Just as with the French Revolution, the Russian and Chinese Revolutions served as catalysts for change that led to better health care, education, social services, etc.

The question is, having seen the changes in world politics in the 20th century, can modern society exists without some form of "welfare state" that ensures that all citizens get the necessary health, education and social services? Is there still a risk that if those services are removed radical politics (like Communism and Anarchism) could regain impetus among the working classes?

Having grown up and lived in a country with virtually no "welfare state" I can say that it is impossible for any modern government to function effectively without some form of welfare system. Having lived in Canada, and having visited Europe many times I can say that the welfare state does lead to very high standards of living. Paying high taxes might be the drawback, but the quality of life seems to justify the taxation problem.

Übergeek 바둑이: Having lived in Canada, and having visited Europe many times I can say that the welfare state does lead to very high standards of living. Paying high taxes might be the drawback, but the quality of life seems to justify the taxation problem.


I dont think it does.... here in the US we already DO insure all of our citizens necessary health, education and social services Nobody is asking to change that, but what advantage do we gain by moving much further into socialism?

Czuch: ... with regards to education, it's a mixed lot over here. There are private and public schools all working, all producing good standards of education (except some within both groups).. or working towards improving themselves. The main roll of the government is setting standards, local county council controls most of the day to day function of the schools in the area. We have standards re education and the running of schools to stop bad schools sitting around doing nothing.

Some businesses take part in local education and contribute towards training of potential employees, as it is recognised that certain skills are needed and that it's best to help develop them.... Their is also apprenticeship.

We have a mixed system on education.

Same with health care, standards etc. Charities also contribute and even run some services. Specialist hospitals, cancer research, RNLI, RSPCA, etc.. we have a mixed system.

Then we get back to efficiency and standards. Cost cutting can be dangerous... Corporate manslaughter was introduced as a charge over here as direct result of lack of standards being kept by a privatised service. Hospitals having to cancel operations due to a privatised service dropping standards in surgical kit preparation needed, in order to cost cut and make more profit... potentially putting life at risk or leave a patients health impaired.

Your country has experienced health insurance firms refusing to cover pre existing ailments.

Now do you understand why I can be dubious of private companies doing certain services? ... and why as myself, others believe a people based policy aka social is best!

Czuch: Less profit making.

Czuch:

> here in the US we already DO insure all of our citizens necessary health,
> education and social services

That is precisely the point. The US is already a form of a welfare state. However, not all citizens get the same services. If that were the case, there would be no debate on health care reform. Programs like No Child Left Behind would be unnecessary. Universities and colleges would be more accessible.

Certain things in certain countries are better, but at a higher taxation cost. It is a tough balancing act. Pay more taxes and get more services. Pay less taxes and have some of the lower income people have lower quality of services. It is an old debate going back to the Great Depression era.

I don't think the US needs to move more towards socialism. What countries like the US (and Canada and other industrialized nations) need is to move away from massive war spending. Less money into weapons, more money into health and education, and more money into the pension system for retirees. Next year (2010) people born in 1945 turn 65. The baby boomer generation will start retiring in big numbers. If something is not done now, a lot of retirees will end up with inadequate pensions and services. I think this is when the shift in thinking will happen. Governments will have no choice but to streamline their efficiency and stop waste in war.

Übergeek 바둑이: Programs like No Child Left Behind are typical of the government's failure to first understand the real problems and two, their inability to implement anything truly meaningful to address perceived problems. No child Left Behind is unsuccessful and is nothing more than the government implementing a program to score political points. The government is not the solution. They are most often the problem. Cash for clunkers is a sham. And all one needs to do is look at the failure of the US Post Office to make real money as a CLUE that the government can't run anything (but they are very good at ruining everything).

A government sponsored health care system will fail. The idiots in Washington are incapable of running such a huge enterprise. History proves this over and over again. Only private industry can make real change work. And only real and meaningful competition can keep costs down.

One reason the US health care costs are so high: The government makes "rules" that tie the hands of insurance companies. US health care companies cannot truly compete because of State and Federal regulations. Nation-wide insurance coverage availability doesn't exist. One guy in one State can pay less then his neighbor across the border. And you can't get insurance across the boarder because that violates State and Federal rules. Stupid. And Tort reform is necessary. 13000 insurance companies out there but I'm limited to but a few that are available to me.

Artful Dodger: Are you sure it's just the governments fault? Your lobbying system has alot I feel to do with the current mess. I am actually astonished that you don't have a nationwide insurance system amongst the companies. We've had it here re private medical insurance.

So.. if you want a nationwide scheme, why be against schemes to introduce it? that is one of the proposals. It's no good saying "our system is a mess" (parad) and then being against an attempt to fix the problem. Many have wanted a streamline scheme, but it's been blocked.

In that lies the problem. It's a headache and someone likes it.

An example... Over a 100 construction companies over here in the UK got caught price rigging on public building projects. They had to repay big money, and many in order to get clemency from prosecution, went and put their hands in the air.

Intel got fined over the same sorta thing.

(V): Your country has experienced health insurance firms refusing to cover pre existing ailments.

Whats wrong with that? Why should I be able to wait and buy a $1000 policy to cover my $100,000 treatment, after the fact that I learned I would need the treatment


Thats the whole game of insurance, isnt it? That they have to have some people who pay into it more than they get in return, so as to cover people who pay into it less than they get in return.

(V): Yes, less profit making... but I have no problem with profit making, in fact I like profit making, and it is profit making that makes economies grow, and I happen to like that, and believe thats what this world needs, and that your system only promotes stagnation and an average ho hum world with average ho hum people and we all just exist in this ho hum world until we die.

Not very exciting existence if you ask me

Übergeek 바둑이: Universities and colleges would be more accessible.


Well, if we could do it by spending less on some areas, IE war, then I do not have any problem, but right now, the plan is to do it with tax increases.

I would personally rather buy a new boat and enjoy what short time we have on this planet, then subsidize some kid going to college, but thats just me. But if anyone else feels different, then what is stopping them from sending the government more of their own money? I dont see any socialist liberals doing that, and because most of them dont mind soaking other peoples money

I see these hollywood liberal elite types all the time bitching and complaining about all types of crap, I can get by on 50K per year, but they are the ones who want us all to be the same, the poor shrinking middle class, those hypocrites could give all their millions they earn to make a film, all except 50K each, and you could pay for every kid in the country to go to school free!!! But you will never see them, or any of the Pelosis of the world, the ones who really care about the common people, you will never see tham give any of their power or money away!!!!

(V): Its not the fault of lobbyists that lobbying is a problem, its the fault of the government that lobbying is a problem

Czuch: "Your country has experienced health insurance firms refusing to cover pre existing ailments."

Exactly. It's like buying car insurance after having an accident and expecting the insurance company to pay for it.

Czuch: Yes... if it was insurance. Strictly speaking it is not, you are paying to get treated for medical problems.

If over here that was tried... Well, the private medical company would get spanked big time by the courts.

......... There is a certain 'oath' regarding medical treatment that doctors swear to.

And as for profit making... you moaned at oil for food (re saddam and sanctions), but allow yourself to be ripped off. You want lower taxes, but allow private companies to overcharge.... something not quite right there

And as for the lobbying.. if it is such a problem.. why do businesses go and still pay for favours? Why isn't the USA population getting it made illegal as it is in the UK??

And as such... the fault lies on both parties and those in business who like rigging things.

Czuch: I see these hollywood liberal elite types all the time bitching and complaining about all types of crap, I can get by on 50K per year, but they are the ones who want us all to be the same, the poor shrinking middle class, those hypocrites could give all their millions they earn to make a film, all except 50K each, and you could pay for every kid in the country to go to school free!!! But you will never see them, or any of the Pelosis of the world, the ones who really care about the common people, you will never see tham give any of their power or money away!!!!


Yes let them eat cake!!!Al gore and his disgusting ilk can go to ........

it won't be the first time that the so called intelligent liberal elitists try to dictate what the masses should do,,, but of course, not themselves..they are "super" important

GTCharlie: Over here, and as much in Europe.. it's been the football players (soccer players to those in the USA) .... It's like a competition to get paid higher then someone else. I remember when the first transfer fee hit a million pounds and people thought that was huge... but as such other players have used that as a precedent to get more and more.

... and it's the football clubs that suffer, having to balance the books over ridiculous over paying. Which extends into endorsed products (fees) .. cost of team kits, etc.


But in the end.. how much money does anyone need to be happy? Or safe and secure??

Hollywood is just part of the 'cream team'.. it extends into business (fat cats) and many other fields and many political ideals.. One Conservative party top MP got caught on camera moaning about the expenses business and how now he had to fork out more as it would look bad if he claimed for gardening work.

So it should!!

of course the conservative elitists just want the masses to work more for less

GTCharlie: Oh, yes, to confirm the same here.

>the conservative elitists just want the masses to work more for less
>the so called intelligent liberal elitists try to dictate what the masses should do

>you will never see tham give any of their power or money away

Yes, the "super" important fatally believe to be at the right place at the right time without having an idea how boring they are in giving the audience a bad example. Just to keep themself entertaining to me, I imagine them being sort of aliens, the hatch that never should have escaped a pyramid, demons in human shape. That makes them sort of funny. Also, that way I'm sure they rely on their doom.

Its interesting that for every little problem, there are those who call for some supranational solutions, as if history wouldn't show that this is the way into problems.

Why doesn't it move forward in the health care problems. As we know that it is the abuse of patent protection and intellectual property. The pharma companies sell at high price to cover "innovation" which is a lie. People who need medication pay for big buildings and disgusting salaries. But of course, puting the finger on patent protection, intellectual property and the market disturbing sizes of the big companies, makes you automatically to lawyer of the third world. Big money blinded statesmen and co. They refuse to see that pointing fingers on the problems in health care would create jobs and a bigger choice for consuments, hence competition, real science and information, real prices.

gogul: Aye... the Pirate Party say pretty much the same about pharmaceutical patents. But as much can be said about most 'new' products, the pricing on them is crazy at the start and in many cases (even down the years) due to name rather then costs. It's why a generic over the counter medicine costs peanuts while a named brand can cost 50% more or higher. The standards are the same, the chemicals involved are the same.. so.. is it the fancy box we are paying for??

(V): well, the establishment here knows too that they are busted. And the US-elites just did a similar mistake as the Swiss did few months ago. I'm talking about the session around judge Gold, the boring UBS and what's behind the bank accounts of the 250 now in possesion of the US: fodder for the monster US.

gogul: The little lie "I did not know that this or that..." is ok within some days. But after years of the same ongoing lies of the elites, even being told different for decades, they should forget about the thought of being part of the solution.

gogul: Are we talking ... offshore.. Well, that's happening in the UK as well. Those who have them are being offered the chance to cough up or pay through the nose (extra costs such as fines, etc) before the UK gov gets hold of the bank account details and gets blunt..... U OWE US

(V): I wish I could talk offshore. Living in this world feels like living in the beast. Your only chance is to get farted out. At least I can see the intestines

gogul: I wonder if Wonko the sane still has his house!!

(V): I searched for vain all-natural threat in a city that calls itself ecological this afternoon. Tonight is huntingtime with jazz music. Yay!

So how come? The Wall Street keeps locking down recources to nutheads who chose heading like crash test dummies the wall. Stop the credit crunch for banks now! Take a look at the money you use and to whom it belongs. Let the Fed do it, better sooner than later. Is it raining money in the street kitchen?

The 3rd largest employer in the WORLD is found in the UK health care system. And of the over 1 million people working in this system, they are all administrators. That number doesn't even account for the doctors or nurses.

In the UK, if you're old, you stand at the end of the line. Kids are serviced before the elderly. And there are horror stories.

Listen to an honest UK politician describe the UK system and you'll cringe. In the US, there is a 100 percent survival rate for those with prostate cancer within the first 5 years. In Canada it's about 95 percent. In the UK, it's 77 percent survival rate.

There isn't any US social program that is fully successful. Money leaks out. Fraud is rampant. When the government spends the people's money, they are reckless.

Artful Dodger: Honest.. He's an MEP if you are talking about the guy I think you are. The leader of the conservative party has disowned him on this, seeing as his child's life quality owed so much to the NHS staff.

Yes.. It's a kinda unwritten rule in the UK that kids do come first, even before OAP's... though that is a point that depends on the circumstances. But in a life and death, it's considered kids always come first.. One has a life to live, one has lived. I thought being a pro lifer, you'd understand such a principle. A person with a young child is always given right of way in queues and the like. As the old saying goes.. it's kinda wrong for children to die before their parents.

The prostate problem is to lack of reporting, men over here have been kinda going in and having checks made... it's a delicate area. But with advertising campaigns, such figures will improve. Our NHS likes to educate us people over matters that through self awareness can be detected earlier.

Fraud was rampant through those who worked to rebuild Iraq, fraud is rampant in your business, how many billions are owed through storing dosh in offshore accounts?? Reckless... Madoff.

Lesson.. no system is perfect.

As to staff... here is the official 2005 figures based on a headcount.

Approximately 1.3 million people were employed in the NHS in England in
September 2005 on a headcount basis. This represents an increase of 34,300
since 2004 and an average increase of over 38,000 per year since 1997.
• There were 679,157 professionally qualified clinical staff in the NHS, including
122,345 doctors, 404,161 qualified nursing, midwifery & health visiting staff
(including practice nurses), 134,534 qualified scientific, therapeutic & technical
(ST&T) staff and 18,117 qualified ambulance staff.
• There were a further 376,219 staff in support to clinical staff. These were in
three key areas – 310,441 support to doctors & nursing staff, 55,715 scientific,
therapeutic & technical support staff and 10,063 ambulance support staff.
• There were also 220,387 staff involved in NHS infrastructure support. This
includes 105,565 staff in central functions, 75,431 staff in hotel, property &
estates and 39,391 managers and senior managers.
• There were 89,190 GP practice staff, excluding practice nurses.

.. ain't you learned to double check your data first yet?

http://www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publications/nhsstaff/NHSStaffNHSLeaflet240406_PDF.pdf


It's a 4 page PDF document with a staffing breakdown.

Artful Dodger:

> In the US, there is a 100 percent survival rate for those with prostate cancer within
> the first 5 years. In Canada it's about 95 percent. In the UK, it's 77 percent survival rate.

I was looking at some statistical data on health care systems. I found a good article in Wikipedia which compares the healthcare systems in Canada and the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared

There is also an article that compares some healthcare statistics between Cuba and the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Cuba

There is an article on the National Healthcare System in the UK:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service_(England)

I included Cuba there because Cuba is atypical. It is a poor country with few resources, but they make healthcare their top national priority and it is covered 100% by the state. Canadaand the UK stand one step below. In Canada 70% of the healthcare system being paid from public (government) sources. In the US 49% of healthcare is paid by the government, the rest comes from private sources (mostly private insurance frims).

I find that the statistics show some things being better in Canada, others are better in the US, others are better in Cuba, etc. I see no real statistical differences in some measures like Cancer survival and incidence rates. Some Cancers are better in the US, others are better in Canada. Child and infant moratility rates are slightly better in Cuba than in the US, but just marginally.

I find the one big difference is that US is the only wealthy industrialized nation to have no universal healthcare system. Low income families receive Medicaid, and that is where the complaints seem to be coming from. Medicaid will not cover many services that are covered by private insurance firms, and waiting lists on Medicaid services are very long. Although 47 million people have only Medicaid coverage, the overall health of the population is not statistically different from most countries with good healthcare systems.

I think people can nitpick at details of different healthcare systems. I find that the bottom line is if the lower income people in a country have available healthcare, then the health of the population improves tremendously. I think that healthcare reform in the US might be perceived as socialist, but if Obama succeeds in improving healthcare services for low income families, then long term statistics in the US could be as good as those as Sweden, Norway or Austria. Healthcare in those countries seems to statistically much better than Canada or the US.

Übergeek 바둑이: Th cost of healthcare in the USA is twice the GDP average of ours and other western countries. Yet, along with those who rely on Medicaid and the like, there are man, many millions with inadequate insurance.

Some reform to an more efficient system is needed, I think both camps in the USA agree with that, it's just a matter of how. And from what I've read the Pres is going to get a change in policy. Maybe not as much as he would like, but a step in the right direction.

The division and lack of even a countrywide insurance firm system (as in one that can be taken out by anyone in any state) is crazy. Bupa here is countrywide private insurance, which by the nature cuts costs and is more efficient.

All that admin in all those insurance companies!!!

Übergeek 바둑이: ??
does that mean that Americans are more unhealthy than Canadians or does it mean the wages are higher in the USA

Bernice: Whose wages? In the US some players seem to earn more as everywhere else, yes: wages are higher in New York. Hmm.

Bernice: I mean to say that I see it from the side of who profitates, who earns money from those who need care, and maybe the question if it has gotten out of hand a little..