Let's remember that the Tea Party was founded by Ron Paul, not Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin. It has become a popular political movement and therefore has drawn in a bunch of hangers-on who want to exploit its popularity. Let's judge the movement by their general principles (lower taxes, lower public spending, rejection of the bailouts), not by particular affinities some members may have.
The piece continues with the sobering assessment that America’s actual unemployment rate isn’t really 10 percent, but close to 20 percent when we factor in the number of people who have stopped looking for work.
This is true everywhere. If you want a better metric, check out the actual proportion of the population in active employment. The unemployment rate is a statistical trick: if people become discouraged and stop looking for work, it may appear that unemployment is going down.
As an aside, all non-wage benefits that employees receive (like free dental plan or paid vacations) are eventually subtracted from their own pockets. To an employer, wage is just one of the costs of maintaining an employee. More "benefits" just means the employee pays more out of his pocket and takes home less money.
Not quite. Other nations have easier access to understanding how many people are unemployed due to unemployment benefits being so readily available. Look at Australia as an example. Anybody can qualify for benefits and it doesn't expire. On top of that they will pay for training and education.
> As an aside, all non-wage benefits that employees receive (like free dental plan or paid vacations) is eventually subtracted from their own pockets.
I think you missed the point of the article. Europe pays dramatically less, and receives dramatically more.
Europe spends "9 percent of GNP on medical" and receives nearly 100% coverage on all health insurance.
USA spends "between 15 to 16 percent of GNP on medical" and has 80% basic coverage and 60% dental insurance. On top of that 20% of the population have access to basic rights of first world nations like sick leave, and roughly 15% of the population has to use food stamps to get buy.
Your assertion of having to pay more to get more is flatly wrong.
The ideas "medical insurance" and "medical care" should not be conflated. Insurance is a policy against rare, but devastating events. For everything else, a consumer is expected to pay retail prices or take out a subscription plan.
Consider the case of car insurance. Do you think you'd need to have an insurance company to pay for oil changes, flat tires or car wash services? If there is a broad policy where the insurance company is obliged to pay for everything, costs would tend to go up because the consumer is suddenly out of the loop (he doesn't have to economize).
The other strange idea is ensuring "pre-existing conditions", which is used as an avenue for free healthcare. At the very least don't call it insurance.
6 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 13.7 ms ] threadThe piece continues with the sobering assessment that America’s actual unemployment rate isn’t really 10 percent, but close to 20 percent when we factor in the number of people who have stopped looking for work.
This is true everywhere. If you want a better metric, check out the actual proportion of the population in active employment. The unemployment rate is a statistical trick: if people become discouraged and stop looking for work, it may appear that unemployment is going down.
As an aside, all non-wage benefits that employees receive (like free dental plan or paid vacations) are eventually subtracted from their own pockets. To an employer, wage is just one of the costs of maintaining an employee. More "benefits" just means the employee pays more out of his pocket and takes home less money.
Not quite. Other nations have easier access to understanding how many people are unemployed due to unemployment benefits being so readily available. Look at Australia as an example. Anybody can qualify for benefits and it doesn't expire. On top of that they will pay for training and education.
> As an aside, all non-wage benefits that employees receive (like free dental plan or paid vacations) is eventually subtracted from their own pockets.
I think you missed the point of the article. Europe pays dramatically less, and receives dramatically more.
Europe spends "9 percent of GNP on medical" and receives nearly 100% coverage on all health insurance.
USA spends "between 15 to 16 percent of GNP on medical" and has 80% basic coverage and 60% dental insurance. On top of that 20% of the population have access to basic rights of first world nations like sick leave, and roughly 15% of the population has to use food stamps to get buy.
Your assertion of having to pay more to get more is flatly wrong.
Consider the case of car insurance. Do you think you'd need to have an insurance company to pay for oil changes, flat tires or car wash services? If there is a broad policy where the insurance company is obliged to pay for everything, costs would tend to go up because the consumer is suddenly out of the loop (he doesn't have to economize).
The other strange idea is ensuring "pre-existing conditions", which is used as an avenue for free healthcare. At the very least don't call it insurance.
A car is a luxury. Health is a right. Keep your examples apples to apples, thanks.