Canada has Record Number of Doctors but Canadians still have Trouble Finding a Doctor

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 28th, 2013

Week in Review

Obamacare is coming.  The path to single-payer/national health care.  Which we’ll have once Obamacare kills the private health insurance business.  By forcing insurers to cover so much that they have to raise their premiums beyond what people can afford.  As people stop buying insurance they will have to raise their premiums further still due to fewer people in the insurance pool.  Which, of course, will force more people out of the pool as they simply won’t be able to afford insurance anymore.  Eventually the insurance companies will not be able to insure enough people to remain in business.  Leaving only the government.  And then the left has their single-payer/national health care.

So what will that be like?  Well, we probably won’t be able to keep our doctors.  Like President Obama promised us we could.  No.  Socialized medicine does not encourage people to go through the hell of medical school to become a doctor.  So there will be fewer doctors.  Requiring higher caseloads per doctor.  Prompting many to retire.  And then it will be more like it is in Canada (see Canadian doctor total at record high posted 9/26/2013 on CBC News).

Canada had a record 75,142 doctors last year and they earned $328,000 gross on average, according to two new reports…

But the numbers alone don’t present the full picture. It’s important to ask not just how many doctors are needed, but where are they most needed and in what specialties, said Geoff Ballinger, CIHI’s manager of physician information.

Kristin Speth, 35, of Toronto, has been looking for a regular doctor since she moved from Alberta four years ago. She’s had headaches since childhood and has been going to walk-in clinics but is frustrated with the experience.

She’s tried the provincial service to find a doctor but keeps getting notices saying there are no leads.

“It is extremely frustrating,” said Speth.

“It’s just so hard to find someone who will just stay longer than the one year that I need for my physical. They just don’t stick around or you know, you can’t find anyone who is taking new patients.”

Canada’s population is around 35 million.  So there’s about one doctor per every 468 Canadians.  The US population is around 314 million with about 691,000 doctors (in 2010).  That’s about one doctor per every 454 Americans.  So the Canadians have more doctors per capita than they do in the US.  But currently finding a doctor in the United States is not as difficult as it is in Canada.  Well, until Obamacare, that is.  After which Americans will be as exasperated as their Canadian neighbors.  Because they already have what Obamacare will give us.  Single-payer.  And doctor shortages.  Even though they have more doctors per capita than we do.  But apparently their ‘single-payer’ workloads are so heavy they just can’t—or won’t— take on new patients.   Something to look forward to under Obamacare.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

And the Votes are in—The Consensus is that Global Warming is Real despite the Lack of Global Warming

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 28th, 2013

Week in Review

Climate scientists have voted.  And the ‘yeas’ outnumbered the ‘nays’.  So there is catastrophic global warming coming our way (see Climate Change: Now It’s Over To Politicians by Thomas Moore posted 9/27/2013 on Sky News).

Nearly 900 scientists helped to write the one million words in the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

And 110 governments went through it line by line.

All the more remarkable that the panel has reached a consensus. That makes it hard to ignore.

One million words?  Who’s going to read this?  Who will be able to understand it?  Other than the climate scientists that wrote it?  Who no doubt wrote so the layperson can’t understand it.  So they can laugh with all-knowing condescension and say, “This is too complex for you to understand.  It is so complex that only smart people like us climate scientists can understand it.  Don’t embarrass yourself by trying to.  Just accept what we say on faith.  Like in a religion.”

Consensus?  There is no consensus in science.  There is no voting in science.  And nothing is ever settled.  One scientific theory holds until a better one comes along to challenge it.  And disproves the old theory.  With empirical evidence.  Or proving it in a laboratory.  Can you imagine if the pharmaceutical companies voted to come to a consensus on what new drugs were safe for people to take?  No.  That would never happen.  For there is no consensus in the pharmaceutical industry.  Because there is no consensus in science.

Sceptics argue that global surface temperatures haven’t risen since 1998 and that the scientific models are wrong.

But the scientists say this is only a temporary pause. Ocean currents have absorbed some of the extra heat, but at some point they will reverse.

If their scientific models can actually predict climate why didn’t they predict that the ocean currents would absorb global warming?  Why didn’t they predict this pause?  Before this pause they were warning us about the exact same things they’re warning us about now.  So were their models wrong back then?  Or were the climate scientists hiding this cooling from us?  If so, why?  Why would they lie about global warming?

There’s no doubt that investment in green energy means higher fuel prices. But delaying action on carbon emissions will only mean greater cost later: flood barriers to hold back the rivers and sea, more expensive insurance and higher food bills.

And there’s your answer.  Who are the climate alarmists?  Republicans?  Conservatives?  No.  They’re liberals.  They’re the ones who have forced all of these environmental regulations on us.  Making our lives more costly.  As they expanded the size of government to regulate our businesses.  And us.  While throwing loan guarantees and grants to their friends and campaign donors in the liberal, green energy industry.  For climate science is not science.  It’s politics.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

Tariffs raised the Price of Honey while failing to keep Chinese Honey out of America

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 28th, 2013

Week in Review

The typical argument for tariffs is that they will save American jobs.  But the cost of the tariffs added on to the products costs us a lot more than the wages of the jobs they save.  Because there are more consumers than producers.  So tariffs help a small percentage of the population while hurting a much larger percentage of the population.

Also, the cost difference between the more costly domestic produced goods and the much lower priced imported goods invites crime.  Because if you can get that lower-priced import and sell it at the higher tariff price you can make a lot of money.  So much money that some people can’t resist breaking the law (see The Honey Launderers: Uncovering the Largest Food Fraud in U.S. History by Susan Berfield, Bloomberg Businessweek, posted 9/23/2013 on Yahoo! Finance).

Americans consume more honey than anyone else in the world, nearly 400 million pounds every year. About half of that is used by food companies in cereals, bread, cookies, and all sorts of other processed food. Some 60 percent of the honey is imported from Argentina, Brazil, Canada, and other trading partners. Almost none comes from China. After U.S. beekeepers accused Chinese companies of selling their honey at artificially low prices, the government imposed import duties in 2001 that as much as tripled the price of Chinese honey. Since then, little enters from China legally.

In September 2010… ALW perpetuate a sprawling $80 million food fraud, the largest in U.S. history… to illegally import Chinese honey…

…E-mails mention falsifying reports from a German lab, creating fake documents for U.S. customs agents, finding new ways to pass Chinese honey through other countries, and setting up a Chinese company that would be eligible to apply for lower tariffs…

ALW relied on a network of brokers from China and Taiwan, who shipped honey from China to India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Russia, South Korea, Mongolia, Thailand, Taiwan, and the Philippines. The 50-gallon drums would be relabeled in these countries and sent on to the U.S. Often the honey was filtered to remove the pollen, which could help identify its origin. Some of the honey was adulterated with rice sugar, molasses, or fructose syrup.

Another argument for tariffs is that they keep inferior and dangerous goods out of the country.   Like this Chinese honey adulterated with ”rice sugar, molasses, or fructose syrup.”  So the tariffs didn’t do much to keep this inferior good out of the country.  It just made people pay three-times as much for this inferior product.  While making the Chinese and American honey industry richer.

Tariffs never help consumers.  They only help the businesses granted tariff protection.  And criminals.  While the consumers have to pay more for less.  Just so a small percentage of the population can keep their high-paying jobs.  Or sell their honey at three-times the market price.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

California raises their Minimum Wage, condemning some to Remain in Dead-End Entry-Level Jobs Forever

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 28th, 2013

Week in Review

Those who don’t understand economics always want to raise the minimum wage.  Because they think it will help unskilled workers.  But it actually hurts unskilled workers.  For a couple of reasons.  It will increase the cost of business.  Especially for small business owners who survive on thin margins.  If they have a few minimum wage workers an increase in the minimum wage may force the owner to lay off one of them.  Or more.  It is often that or working at a loss.

Another way minimum wage workers get hurt by a higher minimum wage is that it will keep them in a minimum wage job.  Where they never will earn much.  Causing them to struggle throughout their life.  You see, minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs.  Unskilled jobs for the unskilled.  So they can get some working skills when they have little to offer an employer.  Which is why historically high school kids and college students work these jobs.  Gaining useful job skills to apply to a future career.  Where they will earn a lot more.  Allowing them to raise a family.  It’s why people go to college.  To earn more money.  As they didn’t expect to get a ‘living wage’ without this higher education.

So raising the minimum wage is not in the best interest for minimum wage workers.  Unless they want to remain in dead-end jobs for the rest of their life.  After all, these jobs are often referred to contemptuously as ‘hamburger-flipper jobs’.  But state governments are always willing to keep people in these ‘hamburger-flipper jobs’.  Why?  For the votes.  Which is why California is raising their minimum wage (see California raises minimum wage to $10 by Melanie Hicken posted 9/25/2013 on CNNMoney).

The state’s minimum wage will gradually rise from $8 to $10, under the law signed by Governor Jerry Brown Wednesday morning. The hourly rate will increase to $9 on July 1, 2014 and to $10 on Jan. 1, 2016…

More than 90% of minimum-wage workers in the state are over the age of 20, while nearly 2.4 million of the state’s children live in a household with a parent who earns minimum wage, according to the statement. The pay bump would boost a full-time worker’s income by about $4,000 to around $20,000 a year.

The next time you go to a McDonald’s count the people working there.  There are a lot people.  Sometimes 8 or more.  Let’s look at that additional $4,000 in a worker’s income.  Which if you add taxes and other employee expenses let’s say it costs the employer $6,000 per worker.  If there are 5 employees that’s an additional $30,000.  Most McDonald’s are franchises.  Basically small business for one single small business owner who pays a whopping franchise fee.  For the privilege of having to do no marketing to get people to walk through their door.

Let’s assume an owner clears $100,000 in profits for his or her own salary.  And works 80 hours a week to earn that.  So his or her spouse can be a stay-at-home parent for their children.  Who bought the business so the two of them didn’t have to work.  Each earning $50,000 to make the house payment in a nice neighborhood with an excellent school system.  With the raise in the minimum wage this business owner will take a $30,000 pay cut.  Making it difficult to pay his or her bills.  Which will force them to lay off some workers and work more hours.  Or close the restaurant.  So they can get a job.  The spouse, too.  So they can afford to stay in the house they worked so hard to afford.  And keep their kids in the school they worked so hard to put them in.  Turning their kids over to daycare as they become working, part-time parents.

Business owners are not all getting rich.  More businesses fail than succeed.  Some make a lot of money.  Some lose a lot of money.  While every month is a struggle to meet their cash-flow needs.  And increases in the minimum wage won’t make this any easier.  It will just increase their costs.  Making it harder for them to stay in business.  And if they go out of business then that higher minimum-wage won’t help those minimum-wage workers.

Of course the question that just begs to be asked here is this.  Why is it that so many families have to rely on entry-level jobs to raise their families?  Is it because the Californian educational system failed them and they’re unable to go on to college?  Is it because the taxes and regulatory costs in California are so onerous that it is hindering job creation in better paying industries?  Or is it because people are so sexually active in high school that they’re having babies before they have an established career?  Or is it because they choose to remain in these hamburger-flipper jobs because the minimum wage plus a generous welfare state is enough to make life comfortable?  This is the more important problem to resolve.  What is putting these people in these dead-end hamburger-flipper jobs to begin with?  For these people would be far better off advancing out of these entry-level jobs than staying in them forever.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

Even the French feel they are Taxed too Much

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 28th, 2013

Week in Review

President Obama is sick and tired of the Republicans, conservatives and the people who don’t give him everything he wants.   The fiscal year ends Monday so he has to fight with the Republican controlled House of Representatives to get them to pay for his increased spending.  And because he’s spending so much we have to raise the debt limit again so we can borrow the money to pay for his out of control spending.  How he wished the United States was more like France.  They don’t have these problems.  Why, the French will even elect a socialist president.  While President Obama has to veil his contempt for capitalism France can just tax and tax and then tax again.  And no one bitches about high taxes.  Well, that may be changing (see Why do the French tolerate such high taxes? by S.P. posted 9/24/2013 on The Economist).

The government is planning an extra €3 billion ($4 billion) of taxes next year, which will push up the overall tax take in the economy to 46.5% and make 2014 the fifth consecutive year that the tax burden in France has grown. François Hollande, the Socialist president, was elected last year on a promise to tax the rich, with a scheme for a top income-tax rate of 75%. But the tax bill is now wearing holes in the pockets of not just the rich but the rest, too. Why do the French put up with paying so much tax..?

Historically, the French have tolerated high taxes as the price of decent public services and a proper universal safety-net. All those fast trains, first-rate hospitals and public crèches do not come for nothing, and the French are the first to defend a way of life subsidised by the public purse that can often only be bought privately in Britain or America. Moreover, the French make a firm distinction between taxes and social-insurance contributions. Only half of households have to pay income tax, but everybody pays social charges… Indeed, the longstanding tolerance for taxes has underpinned the solidity of French sovereign debt, since it is a fair bet that France’s government can efficiently collect the taxes it needs…

This social contract, however, could be on the verge of breaking down. Over the past year, as taxes on beer and cigarettes have risen, tax-free overtime abolished, tax deductions squeezed and tax-band thresholds frozen, even the French have started to grumble. Polls suggest that tax increases have become the top worry among voters, and chief reason for Mr Hollande’s calamitous popularity ratings. The sharp rise in taxes, which began under Nicolas Sarkozy, the previous president, as part of an effort to reduce the government’s budget deficit, is all the more resented at a time when the French are no longer convinced that their public services—underperforming state schools, overcrowded commuter trains—are so much better than those that cost less in other countries. What is the point of paying Swedish-style taxes (or more) if you do not receive Scandinavian-style public services in return?

The new mood has not passed the politicians by. Mr Moscovici acknowledged recently that the French are “fed up” with taxes. Mr Hollande even conceded in a television interview that tax increases have been “too much”. Most of the effort to reduce the budget deficit in 2014 will now fall not on tax increases but public-spending cuts. Mr Hollande has promised a “tax pause”, which will be part of the message in the 2014 budget.

Yes, even the French are tiring of constantly rising taxes.  Especially when they keep paying more for less.  Which is what happens with socialism.  High taxes are a disincentive.  When you have “decent public services and a proper universal safety-net” it takes away a person’s ambition to do more and achieve more.  They may want to.  But if half of their income from this extra effort goes to taxes why put in any extra effort?  After all, there are already “decent public services and a proper universal safety-net” available.  Why work twice as hard to have virtually the same things?

This is the price of the welfare state.  It makes people less willing to take risks.  To start a business.  To create something new that everyone will want to have.  Socialism kills the entrepreneurial spirit.  And stalls the engine of job creation.  With all those small businesses going uncreated huge amounts of wealth goes uncreated.  Wealth that they can never tax.  Tax revenue doesn’t grow to keep up with the growth in spending.  So they increase tax rates.  And find other ways to make people pay more taxes.  While the quality of services fall.  Just like they are in France.  Just as they are in the United States.

And they will only get worse in the United States with the addition of Obamacare.  Which will explode the deficit while throwing the country back into recession.  With a corresponding fall in tax revenue the government will look for other ways to make people pay more taxes.  It’s happening in France.  As it has happened in every other socialist country.  And will happen in the United States.  Because of President Obama’s veiled contempt of capitalism.  The kind of contempt for capitalism shown by socialist President François Hollande.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,