Follow this blog:
RSS

Losers in French health care

By | October 6, 2010, 9:04 AM PDT

Do not assume that just because French health care ranks first in the world, and costs a fraction of what you pay, that everyone is a winner there.

There are many losers.

Consider that while at the Open World Forum in Paris we watched a demonstration of nurses go past the window, seeking a living wage. They wore scrubs and masks. They carried carefully hand-made signs and drew attention from both the police and TV cameras.

Or consider the doctors we met, at their offices. Simple men in short-sleeve white lab coats. Unpretentious and no reason to be otherwise. They have the rank of high civil servants here, an honor to be sure in a society that prizes security. But a medical degree is not a license to get rich.

Or consider the hospitals. We stayed opposite a clinic in Mulhouse (pronounced mill-ooze in French). A simple building, none of the grandeur found in an American hospital. People were led outside by their families, or stood about wearing casts on their feet and single canes ending at the forearm.

Then consider the insurers. Yes, French health care is based on insurance. And they do advertise. But it’s on billboards, not TV, and the prices are clearly marked. The market is tightly regulated, there are just enough choices to create competition, no more.

France is a highly centralized country. It has one medical system, to which everyone subscribes. Procedures are prescribed or proscribed centrally. There is limited autonomy for those not direct engaged in research.

But that’s how most medicine is. There is no mystery to the setting of a broken leg, or the care of a diabetic or with another chronic condition. Even cancer has protocols.

You get what you pay for, and what you demand of the system. The French government demands sacrifice from everyone in the system – doctors, nurses, insurers, hospitals, patients too. Patients must sometimes be very patient, as any American critic of the French system will quickly tell you.

Seeing how doctors in France aren’t gods and don’t have a license to get rich, while insurance providers are highly regulated and can’t wiggle out of their contracts, it’s easy to see why many in the American industry fought health reform to the end, and are still fighting.

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Dana Blankenhorn

About Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet from 2009 to 2010.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn

Contributing Editor

Dana Blankenhorn has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement and founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media. He holds degrees from Rice and Northwestern universities. He is based in Atlanta.

Follow him on Twitter.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a technology reporter since 1982, a business reporter since 1978, and a writer for as long as he can remember. His Schwab IRA has a few tech stocks in it, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials bought over 10 years ago. But the vast majority of his tiny fortune (emphasis on the word tiny) is invested in mutual funds. He presently writes for no one else but ZDNet, SmartPlanet and himself. But if you've got an opportunity let him know. If he takes the gig he"ll first add it to this disclosure page.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
35
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Losers in French health care
the people fighting it are either,

A) rich and trying to protect themselves at the expense of everyone else

B) they have the notion that they two can get rich, again at the expense of everyone else

C) propaganda (death panels and rationing of healthcare)

or (and without doubt the most common), D) too ignorant or fearful of change, to realize that its in the obvious benefit to the whole of society (as every other industrialized democracy realized long in advance of the US), and almost certianly to themselves too, if not now than probably one day down the road (most people don't like thinking that far ahead) .... most people that live in a country socialized heathcare can't fathom going back to that way its still done in the US... the only people that would benefit are the doctors and medical staff who seek to become obscenely wealthy rather the so their job which doesn't include extortion, and the people who want rationing of healthcare (for others, no-one want their healthcare rationed), because healthcare is rationed not when everyone can get it, but rather when people can't get it, which was increasing becomming the probably in the US

and BTW the major probablem with the healthcare reform is it was basically the republicans proposal from the 90's, and was what most people wanted with was neither obamacare (a reiteration of republican proposal from more than a decade ago, which can only mean one of two things (or both) A) the republicans have gone further to the right (a certianly by most people's measure) or B) they are just being obstrustionists because they lost the election in 2008, or that a black man is president, or worse a black democrat is president... what most people wanted (60-70%) was universal healthcare; or single payer as most americans tend to call it.... universal healthcare is what he campaigned on, and the people should have held him and his administration to it.
Posted by Daryl420
6th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Losers in French health care
Losers? Just because doctors are not treated as gods? Just because hospitals are not palaces?

Educational institutions used to teach the concept of a social contract: in order to live together, each individual has to give up some of his or her freedoms so that the group benefits can be realized. Not sure why you do not incorporate this perspective instead of singling out the so-called sacrifices and then labelling them as "losers."

Do your part and show some leadership! Our healthcare industry needs to go back to school and learn how to reintegrate back into society instead of lording themselves over everyone else. This applies to other sectors, too, of course, including lawyers and most middle-upper level management.
Posted by klassman6
7th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Losers in French health care
You know, when I was a kid Doctors drove Buicks and Mercuries, not Cadillacs and Lincolns, never mind the stuff a lot of 'em drive now that makes Caddies look cheap.

But then I'm sufficiently ancient to be able to remember when health insurance was the exception, not the rule.

I don't much care for big government, but the present healthcare system, with its perverse incentives, is well along in the process of bankrupting us.

The only solutions I can see involve either massive government intervention, or banning health insurance altogether, neither of which will be very popular. In the case of the latter option, salaries for just about everyone but Doctors would have to go up a LOT to preserve any reasonable degree of access.
Posted by CodeCurmudgeon
7th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Class warfare rhetoric aside...
...do tell me @Daryl420, how many people do you think will be willing
to invest hundreds-of-thousands of dollars and over a decade worth
of time spent in training to be just a civil servant?

I'd grant you that those who did do so would certainly be people
dedicated to the cause. However, I'd also expect their numbers to
be limited.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
7th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Losers in French health care
You are not going to get the best and the brightest in a system such as that. But, if you don't mind lying there in pain waiting for care the government controlled system is for you. If these socialized systems are so good why do those than can afford it come here for treatment? Our system as it was may not be perfect but it has served may of us well.
OK lefties, bring on the nasty comments; it's what you do best.
Posted by philwhite42@...
7th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Losers in French health care
Comment 1 and 2, excellent, I could not have said it better myself,
so I will not.
Number 5, they do not come here for treatment, it is available and
better in other countries. And do not forget, for the liver Steve Jobs
bought with all his money and private plane, a mother with two kids
my have died. That could have been your wife.
Posted by jackvandijk
7th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Losers in French health care
"But a medical degree is not a license to get rich"

I wonder what it costs to get a degree in France? I bet it's a tiny fraction of what it costs here. The end result? Doctors in France more often become doctors because they're compelled to do good for their fellow man, and doctors in the U.S. more often become doctors from a desire to be materially successful.

Our U.S. system is clearly broken. Most Americans would probably consider the French system superior to the U.S. system in most instances, but that's not to say that we can't look at the French system and improve upon it.

Sadly, anyone in the U.S. with the power to effect change (lobbied politicians, insurance carriers and the corporate medical community) has a stake in maintaining the status quo. As a consequence, both our health care and our pocket book suffer.
Posted by omb00900@...
7th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Losers in French health care
Really. I lived in Houston, which drew in many from the mid-east for medical care. Our border states do a good business with Canadians seeking treatment they could die waiting for in their country. Boston attracts patients from around the world also. Newfoundland's PM came to the US for treatment because he wanted the best, same with a recent Australian parliament leader. Didn't Fidel Castro went to Spanish doctors for his care when he was ill a couple of years ago? His doctors in Cuba couldn't help him. Before you start flaming me on that look it up for yourself.
If you like mediocrity then socialized medicine is for you. It's just human nature.
Posted by philwhite42@...
7th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
#6, they do come here.
Canadians who do not wish to wait come here in droves. Their
biggest fear now is figuring out where to go when our system is
converted into one like theirs.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
7th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Losers in French health care
Our system works well for those who can afford it. All the people who can't afford it are, by definition, lazy or addicts & don't deserve health care.
I've yet to meet a Canadian who would rather have our system than theirs.
Posted by hoodedswan
7th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Losers in French health care
#10
Whose definition is that?
Posted by philwhite42@...
7th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Losers in French health care
For the left leaning readers:

William J. H. Boetcker, "The Ten Cannots," it fittingly contrasts the competing political and economic agendas of the right and left in this era:
"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves."
Posted by philwhite42@...
7th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Bad health care reform kills.
Caritas Christi Health Care. Owners and operators of 6 non-profit hospitals in Massachusetts are faced with either going out of business, drastically reducing the number of hospitals in the state, or allowing themselves to be bought out by a private equity firm and turned into for profit hospitals.

This sad day is happening because the Massachusetts health care reform has left this organization un-reimbursed for millions of dollars of mandatory health care services provided as required under the Massachusetts health care reform law.

This week the Massachusetts Attorney General gave her reluctant approval to the non-profit to profit status change, as required by law, as a last ditch effort to try and prevent a catastrophic loss of health care facilities within the state.

The passage of the federal health care reform, based in large part on the Massachusetts model, was the final nail in the coffin with creditors losing confidence the hospitals would ever be paid by the government for services rendered.

In other Massachusetts health care news. An urgent bailout request has gone from Governor Patrick?s office to the federal government looking for over $100 million to pay unpaid health care reimbursements before more hospitals fail.

For those people keeping track of the insanity, the Bush and Obama administrations have pumped over $8 BILLION of federal tax dollars into the failing Massachusetts health care system since the states REFORM of the system.

All of this happens while Governor Patrick fights for his political life in a 3-way race for his job in this Novembers election.
Posted by Hates Idiots
7th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Losers in French health care
I remember when there was no insurance and Hospital where run by charitable organizations. It seamed to work very well. Both the rich and poor were served.

When the Federal Government involved through Medicare and Medicaid it became very profitable to be a provider and insurance became a necessary addition to their system.

Third party payers is the problem we have today.
Posted by buddycheek
8th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Losers in French health care
Yes Dana, I am perhaps here to stir up trouble...

I think the flavor of the month seems to be to vilify those who have made a good living for themselves. After all, everyone knows that all democrats are poor and all republicans are rich, right? Just ask the Kennedys, John Kerry, or Jimmy Carter (this is the abbreviated list)! It is quite interesting to me that people seem almost jealous, and would be happy to see doctors reduced to public servants, while still idolizing those who earn a mega income running around on a ball field or entertaining us with their singing and acting ability! When was the last time your mail came on time? How's that public education working for you? When was the last time Justin Bieber or Tiger Woods did anything to help you?

We live in the land of free enterprise. Are we to change this simply to accommodate those who have not achieved a similar level of success? Personally, I am much more in favor of knowing that the men and woman who take care of me when I am ill have a lot to lose should they make a mistake! You will NEVER even the playing field. That is a simple fact of life. Does anyone seriously believe that government health care will save us money? Hammers $300. Toilet seats $600. tooth ache $5000. And a three year wait, freedom to choose...priceless!
Posted by Cold Turkey
8th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
I agree buddy....
I was born in one of the hospitals about to close.

It was a thriving private Catholic hospital for over 80 years until the state mandated they provide additional free health care, beyond what they already provided in non-reimbursed services being a charitable operation. All while the state cut off the Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements they are entitled to receive under the reform law.

So the residents of Massachusetts we will probably lose 6 hospitals. Among the lost will be one of the best trauma centers in the state and the best cancer treatment center in New England north of Boston.

And all of this joy is being brought to the entire nation in the coming years as much of the federal law is based on the Massachusetts model.

And where is Obama now while hospitals close because the taxpayers cannot afford the bills the politicians stuck us with? I will tell you where he is?.

His administration is giving out waivers to companies like McDonalds so they can avoid compliance with the new health care reform law and continue to provide substandard coverage to their employees?

Are you happy now Dana?
Posted by Hates Idiots
8th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
JohnMcGrew@...
You ask a fair question, and the answer is that French medical education is heavily subsidized. U.S. administrations have also offered to pay part of any doctor's medical school bills if they commit to serving an underserved community. That was the hook of the CBS show "Northern Exposure" in the 1990s.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
8th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Cold Turkey
Every nation that gives government a deeper role in health care than the U.S. saves a lot of money, anywhere from 6-8% of GDP, and they provide better service, and their people live longer.

You keep saying it is inconceivable. I don't think you know the meaning of that word.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
8th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
philwhite42@...
I don't have any nasty comments, unless you consider facts nasty.

Other countries pay less, get more for their people, and their people live longer. We're also losing a lot of those rich people you thought are coming here to countries like Mexico and the UAE, where first class care costs less to provide.

See our articles on medical tourism for more.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
8th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Losers in French health care
"Every nation that gives government a deeper role in health care than the U.S. saves a lot of money, anywhere from 6-8% of GDP, and they provide better service, and their people live longer.

You keep saying it is inconceivable. I don't think you know the meaning of that word."

Perhaps we should consider what they have given up! I must point out that I have not used the word inconceivable, however I do indeed know what it means!

It was in the spirit of humor that I said I was here to "stir up trouble". You on the other hand seem a bit snarky with those who do not agree with you. I thought considering differing ideas and opinions was part of being a good journalist... Perhaps I have at last found myself following the wrong blog. I must also point out that closed mindedness is not at all attractive. I believe I shall seek other avenues for open minded disscussion!
Posted by Cold Turkey
8th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Waiting for the pop..
The annual budget deficit of France is projected to exceed $1 trillion this year. For a population of only 62 million that is crazy.

The US with over 300 million citizens is faced with a $1.4 trillion deficit in 2010.

The socialized society in France is burying them in debt and the US is going in the same direction under Obama where the annual deficit has more than doubled since he took office.

Based on the costs seen in Massachusetts the predictions of the federal reform, based on the Massachusetts model, will add $1 billion a year to the deficit are far too conservative.
Posted by Hates Idiots
8th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Losers in French health care
JohnMcGrew,
You make some rather strong assertions about how not many folks would invest a decade of their lives and a fortune to become educated as a Dr., and that Canadians come to the US in droves to use our system.

I beg to differ. Doctors all over the world invest years of their lives, and some even come over to the US to use our expensive education system, then return to their home countries to become just what you dread: civil doctors. Clearly they don't do it for vast wealth; they do it out of their interest in keeping their fellow countryment healthy. Other countries health care systems are superior to the US in some sectors, and I daresay that having highly trained doctors who also have compassion as a leading motivation is a factor.

As for the Canadians coming to the US in droves, the last survey that I could find showed that there was an overwhelming 0.5% of the total population beating down our doors to do that. An interesting discussion of the Ontario health care system indicated that those numbers were increasing but then the government realized that a large part of the increase was due to US health care providers had some marketing campaigns, advertising to the Canadians, trying to get them to come over to the US side. When the Ontario gov't. stopped reimbursing at such a high level for this service, the numbers dropped back down. check it out: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/17/1/225.pdf

Finally, just out of curiosity:
% of Canadians satisfied with health care: 70%
% of US citizens satisfied with health care: 25%
% of Canadians preferring their own system over US: 83%
% of Canadians supporting "public solutions to make the public health care stronger: 86.2%
.
Posted by klassman6
8th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Drop in doctors is real klass...
Massachusetts has some of the best teaching hospitals in the world and state resident attendance at their schools is down since the state reform was past.

Fewer young Massachusetts residents are looking to the health care field as professions to train for out of high school so the drop in quality employees goes beyond doctors to nurses and lab technicians.

In the past 4 years Massachusetts has seen a net drop of over 45,000 in practicing doctors as young doctors have left the state and older doctors have retired early.

Most of the early retirees and doctors leaving the state have cited the hostile working environment created by the state regulations and the almost nonexistent reimbursement system.

My doctor retires at years end at age 62 because his accountant told he can not afford to practice any longer at the rates he is getting reimbursed at for Medicare and Medicaid. His practice has lost money the past 4 years because of declining or non-existent state reimbursements.

All of these trends have been seen in the UK and France for decades, which is why they import doctors from third world nations. African nations hate the UK for stripping them of quality doctors.
Posted by Hates Idiots
8th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
@klassman6, @Hates Idiots beat me to it...
...with the fact that in the UK, (I don't know about France) over
half of their doctors are imported from 2nd & 3rd world nations.
Why is that?

Dana is correct that subsidizing medical education would certainly
make becoming a doctor more accessible. However, how does
he propose to compensate for the decades of education it
requires, and the amazing amount of hours most doctors work?

I think the reality is that in countries like the UK, natural-borns
possessing the skills look at the sacrifices required to become a
doctor, and opt for professions with lower barriers to entry and
higher financial rewards.

That's one reason everyone is producing lawyers at a greater
rate than doctors. I've always suggested that we should perhaps
try socializing the legal profession first just to see how that works
out before trashing health care more.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
8th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Losers in French health care
So Massachusetts students numbers are down because doctors can't make the kind of money that they used to be able to rake in so they figure that they can go to another state or another profession that takes less time to make the kind of money they want to make.

More power to them. Now does that tell us something about the nature of the students that are being drawn to the profession and what draws them there? Furthermore, if we give them a no-holds barred fee for service system where they can make money hand over fist, how does that solve our health care problems?

I don't see them any worse than lawyers, but I don't see them any better either. Perhaps we are running into the limits of an Adam Smith type of economics where greed runs the system and in return those folks magically raise the economic level for the rest of the culture. We saw how the communist economic world collapsed under its own weight; I'm afraid we are in the midst of witnessing the same excesses take out our own economic world.
Posted by klassman6
11th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
So @klassman6, are you actually telling me that...
...we could expect a better level of care from people who spend over
a decade in training only in the end to be remunerated as civil
servants?

Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, it seems to me that Adam
Smith was right on.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
12th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
We are talking about doctors and nurses quiting..
because the government, and people like you, expect them to work for free.

My doctor has never been rich. He is an old school family practice doctor who drives a Chevy and he has been losing money for at least 3 years. Until the federal reform was passed he was considering moving to another state. With the flawed Massachusetts plan going nation wide, in the federal reform law, his accountant told him to retire before he ended up on welfare.

Massachusetts high school graduates are not interested in the medical field because everyone they know in the field is losing money or barely getting by. The big money in Massachusetts health care is now on the government management side, not the frontline care side.

The small state government agency created to manage the health care reform has seen its payroll double every year since it was formed. Yet they have the same number of staff.

Those political hacks keep giving themselves pay raises while many private doctors and hospitals go un-reimbursed for provided services required by law.

When the starting pay for a nurse in Massachusetts is competitive with the pay at Starbucks and McDonalds and doctors cannot afford to pay off their school loans would you go into the health care field if you were graduating form high school?
Posted by Hates Idiots
12th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Losers in French health care
John,
You are certainly entitled to go after the money, since that is what motivates you, and if your time investment/money payoff ratio isn't good enough, then move right along. But make sure to make sure for the other calculators of greed payoff in the legal, military contract, security, and, yes, governmental sectors, since they are apparently all using the same Adam Smith rationale that you seem to be pledging allegiance to.

Can you explain to me how a fee-for-service doctor, some of whom can make millions annually, is fundamentally different from a private contractor who is paid by the military to do essentially the same thing as a soldier at 10 or even 100 times the pay? Or a government worker who has parlayed his work into an attractive pension, then quit so he can use his influence for a corporation to get in on some fat government contracts? Or act on insider information and buy up cheap agricultural land which can be turned around quickly at a huge profit because of some big highway being built? And then there are the pharmaceuticals, who seem to have built their margins not on just recouping their R&D costs but on the margins of the street corner crack dealer.

Adam Smith says that individual greed is good for the whole, but all I'm saying is that we are getting too good at it for our collective good. Health reform was needed because it is bankrupting our economy, and you know it. If the solution seems worse than the problem, then how do you propose to prevent the system from collapsing from its own excesses, especially when combined with the excesses of others who have copied the techniques of the "healing profession?"
Posted by klassman6
12th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
If you want to talk greed klass...
look at government workers.

The Department of Interior got a 23 percent increase in its budget in 2009, the first year of the Obama administration. The National park Service falls under Interior.

None of that new money went to funding needed repairs in our National Parks. None of that new money went to funding existing wildlife management programs that are grossly under funded. None of that money went to pay raises for the hard working Park Rangers who have not seen a raise in 5 years.

The new money went to renovate Department of Interior offices in Washington DC. This unnecessary renovation came just 3 years after a full renovation of the same offices.

The new money went to an across the board pay raise for all Washington based Department of Interior civilian employees. Even the DC area Park Rangers were singled out not to receive a pay raise. But National Park Service civilian employees got double digit pay raises.

In 2008 less than 100 Department of Defense civilian employees at the Pentagon made over $100,000. In 2009 over 10,000 of them got double digit pay raises that pushed them over $100,000 per year.

All of this happened while millions of people in the dreaded private sector where laid off in 2009.

That is what I call ruling party greed.
Posted by Hates Idiots
12th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
klassman6@, you perfectly illustrate the problem.
Each and every example of "economic injustice" you site is the result
of government intervention in the marketplace, something Adam
Smith would not have approved of.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
13th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Losers in French health care
...including the physician reimbursement system which has allowed them to get rich by shoving as many diagnosis-related automatic reimbursements through the system as is humanly possible, right?

By the way, I agree that the government intervention has been very unhealthy, perhaps for different reasons that you have mentioned. You bemoan the burdensome regulations and over-the-top taxes, but hand in hand with that goes the lockstep ownership of this money machine by major corporate entities. I remember trying to get to talk to some mid-high level corporate execs about a project I was working on several summers back, and I couldn't get to them because, as the secretary told me, "everybody who is anybody is down at the Republican National Convention cutting deals."

So our politicians have a long and illustrious history of becoming beholden to the big money sources, who fund their campaigns, which is required to access the highly influential media magnates. This gives corporations who bemoan the tax and regulations of the goverment access to the legislative process, which tilts the playing field in their favor so they can rake in noncompetitive government contracts, write the rules and regulations that typically push out the small guy in favor of the lobby-sponsored company, protect the rules of reimbursement that practically become money printing machines for those writing the rules, and on and on and on.

So what are the chances of changing the system? Specifically, do you see:
-any move to clean up campaign spending laws (it's getting much worse, not better)
-any move to end noncompetitive contracts that are making military budgets shoot through the roof?
-any move to end revolving door practices that allow government executives to move into lucrative corporate lobbying and legal jobs?
-any move to end the lucrative road projects that destroys farms and drives most of the real estate market?
-any move to reform the system that has made big pharma perhaps the most lucrative business right after energy?

I could go on, but you get the idea. Doctors are symptomatic of a system that is dominated by a symbiotic relationship between corporations and the government but is parasitic on the small guy and the planet. Government protects the multinationals and other big pocket players, and in exchange, monied interests get richer by getting at the big pools of money that are collected. So you are certainly correct that this is not the system that Adam Smith envisioned, but labelling this whole floating casino as being caused by government intervention is like saying that eating and pooping are not related.
Posted by klassman6
14th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Simple fix Klass...
all of those problems can be fixed.

We must hold people accountable and throw them out of office when needed. Like the 3 problem children we have here in Massachusetts.

We have a Congressman whose wife just admitted to money laundering over $8 million dollars for the family business of illegal gambling, yet the Congressman gets offended when anyone asks him about his claim to a lack of knowledge on the matter. 'my wife is off limits' is the answer.

Well Congressman Tierney, how did your wife participate in an illegal gambling operation with the rest of her family, her father died before indictment, her sister is under indictment and her brother is a wanted fugitive, and you did not notice it?

And his wife got a sweetheart deal from the State Attorney General, another elected official. She is only paying a $2,900 fine and doing a few months house arrest.

And then we have Congressman Barney, Freddy and Fannie are solvent, Frank who has been caught with his hands in the cookie jar dozens of times, but the moon bat liberals in his district keep electing him. His latest actions might finally catch up to him.

He accepted unreported gifts from a bank and a hedge fund that he used his position as Chairman of the House Finance Committee to funnel TARP money to even though both institutions did not qualify for the money.

The CEO of the bank was the husband of a California Congresswoman who asked for a favor in return for some off the books gifts. Her husband?s bank was in such trouble they bought him a new Porsche as his company car the day after the TARP check was cashed.

The fianc? of a Congresswoman from Maine, where Frank owns property, received over $200 million in TARP funds for his hedge fund when no other hedge fund received TARP money. In return Frank received a free flight on the guys private jet to fly from Maine to a house the guy owns in the Virgin Islands.

So come November, Congressman John Tierney, Congressman Barney Frank and Attorney General Martha Coakley should lose their jobs. I am going to predict at least 2 of them will lose their jobs.

If any voter in the state of Massachusetts votes for these corrupt people to stay in office they are either morally bankrupt or fools.
Posted by Hates Idiots
14th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Losers in French health care
No question about holding accountable; I fully agree with that. But the devil's in the details, because systemic change in anything as huge an endeavor as health care is not intuitive, has lots of vested interests who will fight you tooth and nail every step of the way, and will create new injustices every time you solve an existing one.

That's why I think it is supremely counterproductive to put a bunch of energy into repealing the health reform that has already passed. It is far from perfect, but it does begin to address some of the huge problems with the current system. Nobody said it was the desired end point, so I think it is far more productive to continue the reform process that began. Outraged by some injustice that looks like it will create? Change it. Afraid it hasn't addressed the central issues enough? Change it. Afraid it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Change it. All major legislative reform has gone down this path, so why should this be any different?

I think that one of the reasons that the tea party movement has gotten as far down the road as it has is because of this clear sense that there are too many folks on the make and it's going to take our country down if we continue to let it happen. Big corporations have worked hand-in-hand with the government to create this situation, and the average Joe is not sympathetic to either. The current way to make big money is so far from Adam Smith's scenario that it's not even recognizable. And that goes for any profession who's been pushing the reinforcement button way more than the rats around them in the rat race, and if the shoe fits, then maybe it's time to get some cheaper ones.
Posted by klassman6
14th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Precedent for repeal.
During Reagans first term a comprehensive health care reform was passed. After the Democrats won control of the House at the mid term elections it was repealed.

Ted Kennedy went to his grave without his dream of health care reform because he led the fight to repeal it in the Senate.

Later studies showed the reform, if left alone, would have helped avert many of the problems we now face.

Among the items killed were the lifting of both annual and lifetime coverage limits, allowing the sale of health insurance across state lines, allowing the sale of both comprehensive and catastrophic only coverage options and enhanced health care savings accounts.

None of which are addressed in the current law.
Posted by Hates Idiots
15th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
You are correct klassman6@...
...in that the government and the feedback loop with industry it
establishes is highly corrupt and unwieldy.

So is making the government even larger, more powerful, even less
unaccountable and on top of that, totally responsible for my
personal health care a rational solution?

Insane, I'd call it.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
15th Oct 2010
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!