In all seriousness, when you’re opening up a new discussion you might want to think twice about insulting those who might want to participate. Unless of course you just want to preach to the choir.
America is also dead last in palins-per-million contamination. In any case, putting in some form of UHC is going to lead to short-term instability but, it can plausibly be argued, will leave you better off in the long run.
It certainly hasn’t impeded “economic freedom” in the top seven countries.
How far up from the bottom of the list do you have to go before finding a country with an effective UHC system? Just asking.
One has nothing to do with the other. It’s apples and motor oil. If that was a metric than I could point to the Soviet Union and Greece and say it was/is the cause of their financial woes.
And they were against being for something before you were against it before they were for being against something before you were for it.
Like I said, they considered safety regulations a sign of lacking economic freedom. In an age where products are constantly recalled due to health hazards, I do not see why lowering safety standards to win a higher score on a Heritage test is a good thing.
Then you look at their definition of fiscal freedom, which involves the top tax rates on individuals and corporations, then scores based on that. I don’t understand why they looked at the top rates.
They say that is the reason, but the Laffer curve doesn’t have an easily identifiable set point. So they seem to be merely assuming there is a point on the Laffer curve, and anything above that lowers revenue. But being Heritage, of course they will support supply side economics. So who knows what they picked as that point.
Then they subtract points on investment freedom due to investment regulation. However the US economy nearly collapsed due to a breakdown of investment regulation in the financial and mortgage industry. The repeal of financial regulations in the 90s supposedly helped create the fragile financial system we have now.
Basically, if you are a country that imports toxic toys from China, where people cannot retire (no social security) and are locked in jobs they hate (no universal health care) with an economy driven by a financial industry that can collapse the global economy due to a stiff wind, you are ‘more free’ according to the Heritage foundation. So it is absurd. They don’t seem to care about the negatives of all this ‘economic freedom’
Environmental pollution
A weakened consumer class where demand is sluggish
High levels of risk
Constant product recalls
Health problems due to pollution
Lower productivity due to no social safety net
etc.
Oh, I agree, a half-decent UHC like the one we have in Australia would be a vast improvement, if only to get rid of the retarded half-measures you use as stopgaps. What I don’t agree with is that your politicians have the capacity to create a half-decent UHC system.
Constantly recalling products due to health hazards is a good thing, if the health hazards are significant. The fact that the recalls are being made does not itself tell you whether those recalls are justified or not.
UHC increases Economic Freedom by freeing people to move jobs or take a punt at a new business without consideration of health provision.
Things like happen when you don’t assign “weight” to criteria. In other words you treat each item with the same weight.
For instance if you wanted five things in an accountant
- Knowledge of General Accepted Accounting Prinicples
- Opearte a 10 Key Calculator
- Up to date Tax knowledge
- Managing a staff
- Ability to work overtime
OK if you were to weight all these equally a person with no knowledge of general acconting could be offset with a man off the street who can quickly operate a 10 key adding machine.
Obviously the 5 criteria are not interchangeable but when given equal weight it throws off the data.
If they are using a totally free for all capitalism model as the most “free”, I don’t want it. Read up on the days of unregulated capitalism. It’s a human rights, job security, and economic stability horror story. For the same reason that free for all anarchy isn’t a good government, free for all capitalism isn’t a good economy.
We may not be perfect, but we’re doing pretty well.
A lack of UHC is not the cause of this problem, the tax breaks given specifically to employer-sponsored health insurance are. The problem disappears if you implement UHC, or make employer-sponsored health insurance a taxable benefit, or make all health insurance non-taxable.
Perhaps the top two countries on the list (Hong Kong and Singapore) represent some of the evils of unbridled capitalism – though they are pretty attractive compared to some of their neighbours.
However, the next two (Australia and New Zealand) have human rights, job security, a good social safety net, and good economic stability to go with it. They seem to be doing something right that the US is not. (And UHC is only part of the picture here).
Eh. We’re the only country in the world to tie HCI to employment, and we only do that by way of historical accident. We could untangle HCI from employment w/o instituting UHC. So, yeah, you’re right, but that’s not the only way to accomplish that goal.
Thanks, Heritage Foundation! I completely agree that UHC would make us more free! 
I’d be very surprised if that was true. As far as healthcare goes I was always against what we ended up with.
The existence/absence of UHC in those countries is pretty meaningless.
UHC only appears to factor into their calculations in terms of taxation and spending (and possibly the cost of setting up a business, at least in the US). Since none of the other top 10 countries (or anyone, for that matter) spends nearly as much on defense as we do, pretty much any other spending we do or don’t do is immaterial.
If you want to take something from this study, you could say we could easily afford UHC if we stopped spending so much on bombing things… but we knew that already.
Weeeeelllllll, that’s not entirely true…Canada doesn’t cover prescriptions, eye care or dental care. When I got laid off it was painful to pay my meds out of pocket, and pretty much all insurance plans don’t kick in until you’ve been employed 3 months. I mean, I don’t have anything special in the way of meds, but it was still $200 a month for me. Imagine someone that needed $1000 a month of drugs.
But at the same time, buying insurance for yourself outside of work is much cheaper in Canada - one person could get pretty damn good insurance for an entire year on what some people pay in one month on COBRA.
This, I can agree with. Since most of the technology that transports us, builds things, and feeds us relies on petroleum, I’m not sure when things will change. Unfortunately, the middle east is forced to become our business because we depend so heavily on it for energy and fertilizer.
Petroleum is used to make fertilizer? I didn’t know that.