The UK is Burning because they have too much Socialism and Class Warfare

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 10th, 2011

You Simply can’t Keep Increasing the Burden on the Productive Class Forever 

The UK is burning.  Thanks to socialism.  And class warfare.  For people are rioting because they’re not getting enough stuff.  So they’re correcting that inequity by stealing stuff from others (see As rioting spreads UK’s Cameron vows crackdown by Stefano Ambrogi and Angus MacSwan posted 8/10/2011 on Reuters).

Youths fought running battles with police in the northern cities of Manchester and Liverpool as well as in the Midlands.

They smashed shop windows, carted off televisions and designer clothes, and torched buildings as police armed with shields and batons struggled to maintain control…

Gangs of youths in hooded tops battled police in Manchester, smashing windows and looting shops, and setting fire to a clothes shop.

In nearby Salford, rioters threw bricks at police and set fire to buildings. TV pictures showed flames leaping from shops and cars, and plumes of black smoke billowing across roads…

In Liverpool’s Toxteth district, rioters attacked two fire engines and a fire officer’s car, police said. Earlier, some 200 youths throwing missiles wrecked and looted shops…

Cars were burned and stores looted in West Bromwich and Wolverhampton in central England; and in Nottingham a gang of young men set fire to a police station. There were also disturbances in Birmingham and Leicester in central England, and Milton Keynes north of London…

In Birmingham, police launched a murder inquiry after three Muslim men died after being run over by a car in the mayhem there. A friend of the men told BBC radio they had been part of a group of British Asians protecting their area from looters after attending Ramadan prayers at a mosque.

“The car swerved toward them. It was cold-blooded murder,” the friend said. The father of one of the men tried to save his dying son with CPR.

They’re not doing this in the US.  Yet.  Because the US is not quite the social welfare state the UK is.  Yet. 

These UK riots illustrate the problem with socialism.  ‘From those according to ability to those according to need’.  The youths rioting have no ability.  And have shown no effort to learn any ability.  Content to remain on the dole.  And it’s a very generous dole in the UK.  Well, it used to be.  Hence the rioting. 

The rioters have needs.  Great needs.  Widescreen televisions.  Designer clothes.  Seeing buildings and cars burn.  So they attended to their own needs.  Took from those having ability.  And burned the mother up.  Destroyed the property of the very people who pay taxes and fund the welfare state.  And provide jobs.  So it looks like the rioters haven’t helped their employment prospects in the community.

Getting a permanent underclass dependent on government benefits provides loyal voters at election time.  But it comes with a price.  The spending required to maintain this underclass eventually becomes unsustainable.  Because you simply can’t keep increasing the burden on the productive class forever.  They may just say screw this and go on the dole, too.  And let someone else put up with the high taxes.  And the looters.

“This disturbing phenomenon has to be understood as a conflagration of aggression from a socially and economically excluded underclass,” the liberal Independent newspaper said.

“These youths live in the heart of British cities but they do not feel part of them. Far too little has been done by successive generations of politicians and public servants to integrate these individuals into normal society. The fuse for this explosion has been burning down for many years.”

Oh, society’s to blame.  Not the people smashing windows and stealing stuff.  Or the people setting fires.  It’s the people who have been living by the rules, the law-abiding people, who are to blame.

Critics say government policies of chopping public spending and raising taxes to cut a huge budget deficit have aggravated the plight of urban youth as the economy struggles to grow and unemployment rises.

The awarding of huge bonuses to bankers has become emblematic of a culture of flashy consumption for the elite.

Corruption scandals within London’s police force and a 2009 scandal over parliamentarians’ expenses have also fueled the notion that greed is a motivating factor across the spectrum of British society.

“Everyone’s heard about the police taking bribes, the members of parliament stealing thousands with their expenses. They set the example. It’s time to loot,” a youth in the riot-torn London district of Hackney told Reuters.

“It’s time to loot.”  That says it all.  They don’t want to sit down and discuss socioeconomic issues.  They just want to get stuff while the getting is good.  I mean, there are protests.  And there is theft.  Labor standing in a picket line is a protest.  Smashing windows and stealing stuff is theft.

Is State Welfare so Generous that People don’t want to get off of State Benefits? 

Of course, some are politicizing this violence.  To make the case for more social spending.  Because if you don’t pay these thugs off they’ll come and smash your windows and take your stuff (see Do Budget Cuts Cause More Riots? by Bouree Lam posted 8/10/2011 on Freakonomics).

A couple weeks ago, Jacopo Ponticelli and Hans-Joachim Voth put out their working paper “Austerity and Anarchy: Budget Cuts and Social Unrest in Europe, 1919-2009.” It uses cross-country data in the 90-year period to examine whether riots and civil unrest increase as governments cut spending. They found a positive correlation between social instability and budget cuts.

I think the real question is this.  Is state welfare too generous?  Is it so generous that people don’t want to get off of state benefits?  And when said benefits are cut they riot?  Are they so lazy and have such a state-induced entitlement mentality that the thought of having to provide for themselves is so disagreeable that they prefer burning their own neighborhoods? 

And so they riot.  They torch their oppressors.  Probably drive these stores out of their neighborhoods.  And discourage anyone from opening a new store in such a violent and riot-prone neighborhood.  Now what?  Where are they going to shop with no stores?  Who will they riot against then?

The Balance of Power has always Determined whether there will be Peace or War 

As bad as all of this is, some are saying the US should follow the UK’s example.  Stop being a world superpower.  And enjoy harmonious bliss at home.  Like they have in the UK.  When they’re not rioting and burning the place down (see Three Cheers for Decline by Charles Kenny posted 8/9/2011 on Foreign Policy).

Of course, the United States still possesses greater military strength than any other country in the world. But what good has being the world’s policeman done for Americans? Wielding that might meant the United States saw more combat deaths overseas last year than any other country, according to data from Uppsala University. Beyond the blood is the treasure: U.S. military spending increased 81 percent between 2001 and 2010 and now accounts for 43 percent of the global total — six times its nearest rival, China. The U.S. military burden is equivalent to 4.8 percent of GDP, the largest economic burden of any OECD country.

Everyone attacks U.S. defense spending.  Something, by the way, called for in the Constitution.  Unlike entitlements.  Now 4.8% of GDP is too high and should be cut.  Whereas entitlement spending is twice that amount and yet no one calls for any spending cuts there.  So it’s not a money thing.  It’s a ‘let’s weaken the U.S. thing’.

Freed from the distractions of colonial oversight and global leadership, it could retire its planet-spanning chain of military bases, shrink the Royal Navy, and devalue the pound without fears that the world would come to an end. And the country learned to collaborate without feeling equal status was a slight to its dignity — joining the European Union, for example, and signing the Kyoto Protocol.

Could the United States go down the same track toward contented (well, most of the time), pretty-good-power status?

But let’s not forget something.  When the sun never set on the British Empire the world was a more peaceful place.  We call it Pax Britannica.  Latin for British peace.  The British Empire was a benign one as far as empires go.  There was prosperity and peace.  And little war.  Something only a powerful military can give you.  When in British or American hands, at least.

The world is a dangerous place.  Always has been.  And the balance of power has always determined whether there will be peace.  Or war.  When the Nazis had it there was war.  When the British had it during the Pax Britannica there was peace.  Yes, the US and UK have made some mistakes.  But ask yourself this.  Who would you feel more comfortable having the kind of military might the US has?  China?  Iran?  Russia?  I think not.

So the US should give up its national security interests.  And take that money and spend it on more state benefits.  Like the UK did following the end of her empire.  So the permanent underclass can grow larger.  And more restive.  Demanding ever more benefits.  And rioting when they don’t get what they want.  Not a very good tradeoff for living in a less safe world if you ask me.

People Dependent on Government Benefits tend to vote for Candidates who Promise more of the Same

The rise of the welfare state has created a permanent underclass dependent on government.  Because overly generous benefits made it attractive to remain in the underclass.  Happy not to be productive.  Living off the labors of those who are.  It’s good politics.  People dependent on government benefits tend to vote for candidates who promise more of the same.

But there is a limit to how much wealth you can transfer from the productive class to the nonproductive.  If you take too much away the productive class may just join the ranks of the nonproductive.  Because that’s where the incentive is.  So the government can only tax up to a certain point.  Then they have to start borrowing.  Until the borrowing creates deficits too great to borrow anymore.  So then the spending cuts begin.  And, of course, the rioting.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Out of Control State Spending – Greece, France, the U.K. and the U.S.A.

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 15th, 2010

Greece Burning – Public Sector Pay and Pensions Bankrupting the Nation

Things got ugly in Greece during their 2010 financial crisis.  At least three died one day during rioting (see Greek financial crisis explained posted 5/6/2010 on The BBC).

Three people, including a pregnant woman, have been killed during riots in Athens.

And why were the Greeks rioting?

Many of the protesters are public service workers, whose salary comes from the tax payer…

They object to their government’s plan to get Greece’s economy back under control.

It includes a freeze on public sector pay, raising the tax on fuel, and cutting pensions.

And why did Greece find herself in a position to take these austerity measures?

For years, Greece has been spending money it doesn’t have.

The government there took advantage of the economic good-times to borrow money and spend it on pay-rises for public workers and projects such as the 2004 Olympics.

France Burning – Early Retirement Age Bankrupting the Nation

Things weren’t much prettier in France.  They, too, were facing out of control state spending.  So they, too, tried to cut their spending.  And it didn’t go over well with the people (see Proposed retirement age change prompts riots in France by The Associated Press posted 11/4/2010 on The Chicago Sun-Times).

Workers opposed to a higher retirement age blocked roads to airports around France on Wednesday, leaving passengers in Paris dragging suitcases on foot along an emergency breakdown lane.

Outside the capital, hooded youths smashed store windows amid clouds of tear gas.

Riot police in black body armor forced striking workers away from blocked fuel depots in western France, restoring gasoline to areas where pumps were dry after weeks of protests over the government proposal raising the age from 60 to 62.

And what was their greatest fear of these austerity cuts?

Many workers feel the change would be a first step in eroding France’s social benefits – which include long vacations, contracts that make it hard for employers to lay off workers and a state-subsidized health care system – in favor of “American-style capitalism.”

The United Kingdom Burning – Cheap College Tuition Bankrupting the Nation

Meanwhile, in the U.K., they’re having their own riots.  And the rioters attacked the Royal Family.  Fortunately for Prince Charles, his car took the brunt of the attack (see Prince Charles’s car kicked in tuition riot by The Associated Press posted 12/9/2010 on CBC News). 

“We can confirm that the royal highnesses’ car was attacked by protesters on their way to their engagement at the London Palladium this evening. The royal highnesses are unharmed,” a statement from Prince Charles’s press secretary said.

And why were the people rioting?  Much like in Greece and France, the U.K.’s generous social benefits are bankrupting the nation.

Cameron’s government describes the move as a painful necessity to deal with a record budget deficit and a sputtering economy. To balance its books, the U.K. passed a four-year package of spending cuts worth $129 billion, which will lead to the loss of hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs and cut or curtail hundreds of government programs.

The government proposed raising the maximum university tuition fees in England from $4,780 a year to $14,000. Students reacted with mass protests that have been marred by violence and have paralyzed some campuses.

Not Burning Yet – Social Security and Medicare Bankrupting the Nation

Social Security and Medicare are going broke.  And will.  It’s just a matter of time.  When they came into being, there was an expanding birth rate.  Actuaries counted on those birth rates to continue.  But they didn’t.  The baby boom generation had only about 3 children per family.  Whereas their parent’s generation often had 10 kids or more.

Social Security is like a Ponzi Scheme.  There are no retirement accounts.  Payroll taxes from workers today pay the retirees of today.  Think pyramid scheme.  As long as the base of the pyramid (those workers paying taxes) grows at a greater rate than the tip of the pyramid (those collecting benefits) the scheme works.  But with the reduction in birth rates and our aging population, the pyramid has inverted.  The tip of the pyramid is growing at a greater rate than the base is.  As the ‘size’ of the tip and the base approach each other, eventually one worker will support one retiree.  And if a retiree lives on, say, $30,000 a year, do the math.  In a two-income family, one income will support a retiree.  And nothing else.  And that just ain’t sustainable.  Ergo, Social Security will go broke.

Ditto for Medicare.

Obamacare – Tinder, Gasoline and a Match

All right, we’ve seen how out of control state spending has led to austerity measures throughout Europe.  And rioting.  We have two huge entitlement programs pushing our county down the same path.  Europe is cutting costs (even when cities are burning in the process).  And what do we do?  We double down.  We add a third entitlement behemoth that will make Social Security and Medicare look tiny in comparison.

Obamacare.  Affordable health care for everyone.  Because the government is going to force everyone to buy health insurance.  Because the more people who pay premiums, the lower each premium needs to be.  Think pyramid scheme.  You need more to pay in (the base) than collect benefits (the tip).  Because this ain’t insurance.  It’s the mother lode of welfare entitlements.  And it’s also something else.  Unconstitutional (see Opposition to Health Law Is Steeped in Tradition by David Leonhardt posted 12/14/2010 on The New York Times).

On Monday, a federal judge ruled part of the law to be unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court will probably need to settle the matter in the end.

But that doesn’t stop the Obamacare cheerleaders.

We’ve lived through a version of this story before, and not just with Medicare. Nearly every time this country has expanded its social safety net or tried to guarantee civil rights, passionate opposition has followed.

The opposition stems from the tension between two competing traditions in the American economy. One is the laissez-faire tradition that celebrates individuality and risk-taking. The other is the progressive tradition that says people have a right to a minimum standard of living — time off from work, education and the like.

Yes, the two competing traditions.  The individuality and risk-taking that has defined America until Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives came along.  And the entitlement mentality.  Also known as European Socialism.  Like they have, had, have in Greece, France and Great Britain.  And we’ve seen how that has worked.  But we don’t learn from the lessons of history, do we?

The federal income tax, a senator from New York said a century ago, might mean the end of “our distinctively American experiment of individual freedom.” Social Security was actually a plan “to Sovietize America,” a previous head of the Chamber of Commerce said in 1935. The minimum wage and mandated overtime pay were steps “in the direction of Communism, Bolshevism, fascism and Nazism,” the National Association of Manufacturers charged in 1938.

When my dad worked gross pay meant something.  Today it’s all about net pay.  What’s left after taxes.  Taxes have grown so great that a single wage earner has trouble raising a family.  Unlike those families back before the baby boom.  When a single wage earner could raise 10 kids.  So, yes, the federal income tax has greatly changed the American experiment in individual freedom.

Social Security has ‘Sovietize’ America.  Retirees live in fear of losing their state benefits.  And they know that it’s in their ‘best interest’ to support the state.  And they do.  At the voting booth.  Potato.  Tomato.  The only difference is that we don’t have gulags in Siberia here.  But we don’t need them.  Because the threat of cutting a retiree’s benefits scares them enough to toe the party line.

And now we want to add national health care to the mix.  Because every other rich country has jumped off that bridge.

It is clearly one of the least radical ways for the United States to end its status as the only rich country with millions and millions of uninsured.

There’s a reason why the U.S. does not pay for millions and millions of uninsured here.  Why?  See Greece, France and the U.K. above. 

Guaranteeing people a decent retirement and decent health care does more than smooth out the rough edges of capitalism. Those guarantees give people the freedom to take risks. If you know that professional failure won’t leave you penniless and won’t prevent your child from receiving needed medical care, you can leave the comfort of a large corporation and take a chance on your own idea. You can take a shot at becoming the next great American entrepreneur.

With every previous major expansion of the safety net, history has had a chance to prove the naysayers wrong. It may yet in the case of universal health coverage. But the decision now seems to rest with the nine members of the Supreme Court.

Again, see Greece, France and the U.K. above.  As nice and compassionate as it sounds, it just doesn’t work.  European Socialism.  If it did, it would have worked in Greece, France and the U.K.  But it didn’t.  And that should scare the hell out of us here.  Because we’re heading down the same road.

And history may just prove the naysayers were right.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

LESSONS LEARNED #41: “The want of unearned money is the root of most evil.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 26th, 2010

Money is a Temporary Storage of Wealth that Makes Trade Efficient

People don’t want money.  They want what money can buy.  A dump truck full of money is useless when there is nothing to buy with it.  For money is nothing more than a temporary storage of wealth.

We make or do creative things.  Things or services that people want.  There is a world full of people making goods or providing services other people want.  Some people make cellular phones.  Some people make microwave ovens.  Others provide landscaping services.  And these are the things we want.  Not money.

Money is a tool.  We use it to make trading with each other easier.  People who make cellular phones don’t need to find someone who makes microwave ovens to trade with.  Instead, they receive money for the cellular phones they make.  And the microwave oven makers receive money for the microwaves they make.  Then the cellular phone makers and microwave oven makers can take that money and trade it for what they want.

Our Human Capital Determines the Size of our Paycheck

We call the skills we accrue over time that lets us make or do things that other people want ‘human capital’.  People that have human capital have jobs.  Employers hire them because they have valuable human capital. 

Some people have so much human capital that they start a business.  They’re very good at bringing together an idea, people and resources to make valuable things or services that other people want to buy.

People with human capital are traders.  Just like in ancient Mesopotamia.  Nothing has changed.  Except that we trade more efficiently these days because of money.

It’s Easier to Steal Money than Televisions and Mansions

Not everyone traded.  Some people stole.  Some fought.  When peoples came into contact with each other, they often fought each other.  And the winner took the spoils.

Not much has changed today.  There are people who still steal.  And they are peoples who still conquer.  The only difference really is the efficiency of some theft.  Again, this is due to money.  It is more difficult to steal a 42″ plasma television than it is to steal $750 (which they can use to buy a 42″ plasma television). 

Likewise, it is more difficult for a politician to steal a million dollar mansion than it is to steal money.  Either as bribes from some special interest.  Or from taxpayers.

Unearned – Evil; Earned – Good

Those who steal typically have little human capital.  But because they still want those nice things they steal money.  The problem with theft, though, is that stolen money is transitory.  If you have human capital, you get a recurring paycheck.  Once you spend stolen money, it’s gone.  And you have to steal again.

This want of unearned money is the root of most evil.

People who earn their money with their human capital improve the lives of others.  The more they buy, the more others sell.  And the more jobs these others create.  And these jobs allow other people to use their human capital to buy other things.  Or even make charitable donations.

This want of earned money is the root of most good.

Rockefeller and Carnegie Made and Gave Away Fortunes

John D. Rockefeller made a fortune with Standard Oil.  He was ruthlessly efficient.  No one could refine, transport and sell petroleum products cheaper than he could.  People benefitted from affordable petroleum products.  And after he retired, he gave away vast portions of his wealth to charitable causes.

Andrew Carnegie made a fortune from steel.  Like Rockefeller, he was efficient.  No one could produce quality steel at a lower price than he could.  His steel built the skyscrapers and railroads of America.  He made a fortune.  And gave most of it away to charitable causes.

Most of the politicians that make it to Washington leave Washington as millionaires.  They sell themselves to special interests.  Raise our taxes so they can buy political favor.  And their policies are notorious for the unintended consequences that destroy (e.g., Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) destroyed black families). 

High Taxes and Lottery Tickets Punish the Poor

The federal government has created such an entitlement mentality that some people can’t survive without government assistance.  To fund their destructive policies, they’ve raised taxes on the wealthy.  And impoverished the poor.

With taxes so high, charitable contributions have declined.  Sin taxes (on cigarettes and liquor) have hit the poor especially hard (as they have less disposable income).  Which makes the poor more dependent on government.

But the ultimate insult to the poor has got to be the lottery.  The government entices the poor with illusions of getting rich quick.  And this want of unearned money causes the poor to spend large chunks of their small paychecks or government benefits (that they can’t afford) on lotto tickets.  Hoping to win the big one.  With some of the worse odds in the history of gambling.  (People have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than winning the lotto.  And few people believe that they will ever be hit by lightning.  But they’ll keep buying those lotto tickets.)

But whether a thief, a politician or the poor, the end result is the same.  The want of unearned money makes people make bad choices.  And people suffer because of those choices.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

LESSONS LEARNED #21: “The reason why health insurance is so expensive is because it is not insurance.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 8th, 2010

THE LONGER YOU live, the more you see and hear.  Here’s a smattering of our collective experiences.

YOU CAN LEARN a lot working in a small business.  I did.  I did about everything you could in a small business.  Including keeping the books.  And getting fired.  Over money.  It’s always about money, isn’t it?  And broken promises.  But I digress.

The business owner had a couple of kids.  As did some other ‘key’ employees.  I didn’t.  I was a young, single man.  Rarely went to the doctor.  So the ‘Cadillac’ health care plan we had meant little to me.  But it was important to them.  So important that it was a serious financial burden to the company.  The owner scrimped and saved elsewhere to maintain it.  Including my salary.

I helped to bring us through a difficult time.  I did my part.  Now it was time for the owner to do his part.  But he forgot those promises.  (Important life lesson?  Get things in writing.)  We had words.  I considered my options all the while dealing with one of the ‘key’ employee’s wife.  Who was always calling to bitch about the medical plan.  She didn’t like her co pays, that the non-generic drugs cost more, being billed for something that SHE thought should have been covered, etc.  I talked to her (it seemed like) at least once a week.  So and so who worked at such and such didn’t have to pay for this or that or the other thing.  And, perhaps, in some fairyland, they didn’t.  Our plan was good.  Above average.  She just didn’t want to pay for anything.  In fact, she wanted the business to pay for the things the plan didn’t cover.  She wanted it all.  But didn’t want to pay a dime for any of it.

She thought it was an outrage that she had to pay her bills.  But she took the health care.  Just wanted others to pay for it.  Even if cuts had to be made elsewhere.  Even if others didn’t get promised raises or bonuses.  As long as the cuts didn’t affect her. 

My experience is only a microcosm, but it applies to the big picture.  Our health care system is the best in the world.  But the way we go about paying for our health care is threatening to destroy that great system.  We’re voting ourselves the treasury.  We want more and more things but forget that old saying.  There’s no such thing as a free lunch.  Costs are costs.  And someone has to pay them.  If we don’t, others have to.  Until they choose not to.  And then what are we going to do?  Run to government?

Well, yeah.  There has to be someone we can take more money from.  Make those young and healthy people buy insurance so more people contribute into the big insurance pot and bring down the cost per person.  If they pay more, I wouldn’t have to pay as much.  Or my fair share.

Don’t like that?  Why, then let’s just nationalize it.  Wait a tic, nationalize care sucks.  So let’s not nationalize it.  Let’s do that other thing.  It’s just like nationalizing but we get to keep the things we have now.  Single payer.  Yeah, that’s it.  Let’s go with a single-payer system.  We keep the care we have and tax the rich to pay for it.

Or let’s be like Canada.

I DROVE INTO Quebec once from upstate New York.  At Canadian customs, the guy asked if I had any cigarettes. 

“No,” I said.

“Really?” he asked.

“No,” I said.  “I don’t.”

“Come on.  You must have some cigarettes.”

“No.  I don’t have any cigarettes.  I don’t smoke.”

“I don’t believe you.”

“Well, I don’t.”

He stared at me, smiling.  Waiting for me to break, I guess.  I didn’t.  I was confused.  Customs never interrogated me like that before.  He kept staring.  And smiling.  I looked backed.  Befuddled.

“Okay,” he finally said.  “You can go.”

And I did.  Found out later what that was all about.  Obscene cigarette taxes.  In an effort to stop people from smoking cigarettes.  But it opened a huge black market.  Drug dealers switched from smuggling in drugs to smuggling in cigarettes.  It was as profitable.  And less punishable.  If caught.

CANADA HAS A large tourism industry.  And high taxes.  They tax everything.  Making it costly to be in Canada.  They have a Value Added Tax (VAT).  It’s called the Goods and Services Tax (GST).  That means they tax most goods and services you pay for from the first level of being to its final delivered form.  They tax the thing you buy. And they tax the things that made that thing you buy.  At every level, when someone adds value, they add another GST.  Taxes upon taxes.  They can collect a lot of money.  But they also raise prices.  Which makes everything more expensive.  So Canadians can’t afford to buy as much as they once did.  Less demand contracts supply.  Lays people off.  They spend less.  Pay less in taxes.  Collect unemployment benefits.  Government collects less and spends more.  Deficit spending.  They raise taxes to offset the deficit spending.  And the cycle repeats.

There’s been talk about establishing a VAT in the United States.  Because of out of control government spending.  Those who support it say it will help the economy.  They lie.  Taxes don’t help economies.  At least, they haven’t yet.

In order not to hurt their tourism industry the Canadians (for a time, at least) let tourists get a refund on the provincial and GST taxes paid while in Canada.  Canadians have no choice.  But tourists do.  They could choose not to go Canada.  So they allowed the refund because they knew that higher taxes don’t stimulate consumer spending.  And they wanted stimulated consumers to come to Canada to spend.

SOME CANADIANS DO have a choice, though.  Those who live near the US-Canadian border.  I’ve worked with Canadians who traveled to America to work.  They love their country.  Believe America could learn a lot from her.  But they buy their gasoline in the States.  And everything else they can to escape their own high taxes.

WHEN MY DAD was in the hospital for quintuple bypass surgery, a few of his nurses were Canadian.  They said a lot of Canadian doctors and nurses crossed the border into the United States for better paying jobs.  My dad had no complaints.  They were good nurses.  He was grateful for their care.  That’s what high paying jobs do.  Attract high quality talent.

I SAW A fund drive once while in Canada.  There was a sign on the lawn with a colored-in bar showing where they were in achieving their goal.  A hospital was raising money to buy something.  An MRI machine.  For there was none in this medium-sized Canadian city.

I WAS AT a small community hospital (in an American city) walking the grounds with the facilities manager.  He had to close a small road intersection on campus that doubled as the helipad.  The university hospital’s medical helicopter was making a test flight to this small hospital.  I asked him if they flew in many patients here.  He said no.  But they flew critical patients at this hospital to the university hospital (about 30 miles away) where they had a better chance for survival.

I ONCE WENT on a skiing vacation throughout New England and Quebec.  I skied Jay Peak, Mont Tremblant, Mont-Sainte-Anne, Sunday River, Stowe and Killington.  I remember a helicopter flying overhead at one.  (It’s been awhile, but I think it was in Canada).  There was a sanctioned FIS ski event there.  Part of the requirements for a high-speed ski event is a readily available rescue helicopter to immediately air-lift a seriously injured skier off the hill.

NATASHA RICHARDS HAD a freak accident while taking a ski lesson at Mont Tremblant in Quebec.  She fell.  Like we all have while skiing.  She got up.  Like most of us do.  Laughed it off.  She felt fine.  But there was now a silent killer at work.  She declined immediate medical attention.  After awhile, she started to feel ill.  She would subsequently die from an epidural hematoma due to a blunt impact to the head.  A shame it was only blunt.  Had it knocked her unconscious, she may have survived.  That would have demanded immediate medical attention.

She died because her initial injury was not painful enough.  She therefore had little cause for concern.  As many of us no doubt would have if we were in her place.  Critical time was lost.  Time that she couldn’t get back.  There’s no one to blame.  It was a freak accident.  What made the headlines, though, was an interesting fact.  The province of Quebec did not have a single medical helicopter (probably wouldn’t have made a difference for Richardson).  The province had determined that the cost of a helicopter system was greater than the perceived benefit.

SO THERE’S A smattering of health insurance, tax and health care anecdotes.  A small smattering, but nevertheless a smattering you can draw some conclusions from.  First and foremost, people are cheap bastards.  And they have an entitlement mentality.  Put the two together and you’ve got an ever-expanding, under-funded, welfare state.  And that can only lead to one place.  Bankruptcy.

You can’t keep raising taxes on people to solve problems.  They’re just not going to whistle a happy tune and keep paying.  They will make efforts to evade those taxes.  Or they’ll simply cut back on their spending.  And when they do, they will create other problems in the process.  Those unintended consequences that have bedeviled government planners since the dawn of government planning.

The Canadian health care system is not the utopia some claim it to be.  It’s big.  And costly.  Bureaucrats conduct cost-benefit analysis.  It’s cold and impersonal.  What is the cost per unit life saved by having a medical helicopter system?  Does the mean wait-time justify adding another MRI in a geographic region?  Or would the resultant excess capacity from a second MRI be too wasteful?  And what is the acceptable mean wait-time for a procedure?  Would a 2% cost savings from a reduction in staff be acceptable if the corresponding rise in mortality rates is kept at or below 1%?  It’s all very analytical and rational.  But when it’s your loved one in a critical condition, you’re rarely analytical and rational.  And you’ll do just about anything.  Even go to the United Stated and pay out of pocket for medical care.

Of course, if the United States adopts a Canadian system, the Canadian system should improve.  Without those better paying jobs a short drive from the border, those doctors and nurses would probably stay in Canada and work within the Canadian system.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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