Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
34f3f3f
ParticipantI have been on an Italian bog, and my research led me to a surprising fact. During the last housing trough in Italy (early 90’s me thinks), the effects were not felt as much as other countries, because the Italians refused to accept their homes were being de-valued and held out without putting them on the market. I guess it was spaghetti every night for some, but it seems to have paid off …for a few at least. I’m sure the situation was different, and ARMs etc probably weren’t around to play their part. It just seems a little of that going here on at the moment, although I ‘m not sure Californians will put up with spicy meat balls every night for the next however many years.
ParticipantI have been on an Italian bog, and my research led me to a surprising fact. During the last housing trough in Italy (early 90’s me thinks), the effects were not felt as much as other countries, because the Italians refused to accept their homes were being de-valued and held out without putting them on the market. I guess it was spaghetti every night for some, but it seems to have paid off …for a few at least. I’m sure the situation was different, and ARMs etc probably weren’t around to play their part. It just seems a little of that going here on at the moment, although I ‘m not sure Californians will put up with spicy meat balls every night for the next however many years.
July 14, 2007 at 8:02 AM in reply to: neighborhood sentiments on foreclosed houses and buyers #65808ParticipantSeems like a form of lynching and should be outlawed. No one should feel press ganged by mob rule, and sellers or buyers should not be intimidated by it. It is the very same market forces that artificially raised prices, that now seems to be correcting itself. What are they going to do with it if they buy it? Get me out of here, this is crazy talk!
July 14, 2007 at 8:02 AM in reply to: neighborhood sentiments on foreclosed houses and buyers #65871ParticipantSeems like a form of lynching and should be outlawed. No one should feel press ganged by mob rule, and sellers or buyers should not be intimidated by it. It is the very same market forces that artificially raised prices, that now seems to be correcting itself. What are they going to do with it if they buy it? Get me out of here, this is crazy talk!
ParticipantThis is similar to the old bubble cars, that have been around in Europe for years, though sadly not made anymore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_car
Surely everyone has heard of the Smart Car? Well, its coming to the US next year. It is made by Mercedes so crash tests are of a high standard, and has been on European roads for a decade. It’s a two seater, and does 60 miles to the gallon, and is so small, it can park nose first into the curb.
http://www.smartusa.com/ I owned one and although it doesn’t exactly drive like a Mercedes, it’s fun, and certainly up to the task.ParticipantThis is similar to the old bubble cars, that have been around in Europe for years, though sadly not made anymore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_car
Surely everyone has heard of the Smart Car? Well, its coming to the US next year. It is made by Mercedes so crash tests are of a high standard, and has been on European roads for a decade. It’s a two seater, and does 60 miles to the gallon, and is so small, it can park nose first into the curb.
http://www.smartusa.com/ I owned one and although it doesn’t exactly drive like a Mercedes, it’s fun, and certainly up to the task.Participant91024 sounds like Sierra Madre, the mini-me of San Marino (inland La Jolla). It’s gone from being a quiet little hippy retreat to million dollar yuppie homes, but people still seem prepared to pay over the odds for it because it’s safe, tree-lined and has a village atmosphere where people still talk to each other. Still way over-priced IMO.
Participant91024 sounds like Sierra Madre, the mini-me of San Marino (inland La Jolla). It’s gone from being a quiet little hippy retreat to million dollar yuppie homes, but people still seem prepared to pay over the odds for it because it’s safe, tree-lined and has a village atmosphere where people still talk to each other. Still way over-priced IMO.
Participant…the rest of the world gets a free ride because of the contributions of the US economy and corporations.
Luchabee, the question raised by Micheal Moore is whether US citizens should be getting the “free ride”. He clearly thinks they aren’t. It’s also not clear that French, Cuban or other countries’ health care owe much to contributions made by the US economy. The extent to which this may be true, it could be argued that they may be better able to take advantage of advances in technology due to their health care systems.
Specifically, much of the great research and innovation in medical research comes from the US. These advances can only be funded with a true market economy.
Health care and medical advances are two different things. Whilst the US R&D is higher per capita, its “health care” ranks one of the lowest. It is the system that lags behind in relation to expenditure.
Canada, Cuba, and Mexico are not going to be on the cutting edge of medical research because there is no market incentive for such progress.
With the exception of Cuba, these countries have market economies. A national health care system does not imply the country is not market driven. The other major market economies in the world all have a universal system, which includes, Japan, Germany, UK and France. They are all considered to be better than the US model, and have their own R&D budgets and have made significant advances themselves. Many advances are cross national, with foreign researchers contributing to a pooled effort.
In many ways, it is like Europe and Canada’s free ride on military spending. They can devote a larger chunck of their tax receipts to ridiculous socialist programs because they don’t have to defends themselves. They know the US will do it for them.
It was as a result of defending themselves in wars that Europe decided to devote large chunks of tax money on health. I don’t think there is an assumption in Europe that the US will defend it. US military policy is largely dictated by self preservation, not altruism. It took a bit more than colonial ties to entice the US into WWII. But it is correct that less spent on military means more to spend on health.
The same is true for healthcare. If we decided to transfer from a market orientated system to a single payer, it would mean significantly much less inovation and R&D, which would literally means millions of people across the world would die sooner because they did not receive the latest treatments.
Not necessarily. The US spends significantly more on health than other leading economies, but Americans remain amongst the least healthy, with higher child mortality, shorter life expectancy, and higher rates of fatal ailments. I don’t think the US is giving their research away at the expense of their own citizens. If less was spent on R&D and more on health care, it could conceivably save more lives.
Besides, it is amazing what percentage of the uninsured are very young, illegal aliens, or those that are too lazy to fill out the paperwork for Medicare. Do we really want to funadamentally transform the US economy (and curtailing inovation) for this segment of the population?
It is unlikely that a universal system would fundamentally transform the US economy. Michael Moore’s film didn’t focus on the uninsured. He went to great lengths to show that many victims are the insured.
A lot of people have confused his message with some sort of unpatriotic European left wing social reform mumbo jumbo. To see it that way is bit like reading the bible upside down.
Participant…the rest of the world gets a free ride because of the contributions of the US economy and corporations.
Luchabee, the question raised by Micheal Moore is whether US citizens should be getting the “free ride”. He clearly thinks they aren’t. It’s also not clear that French, Cuban or other countries’ health care owe much to contributions made by the US economy. The extent to which this may be true, it could be argued that they may be better able to take advantage of advances in technology due to their health care systems.
Specifically, much of the great research and innovation in medical research comes from the US. These advances can only be funded with a true market economy.
Health care and medical advances are two different things. Whilst the US R&D is higher per capita, its “health care” ranks one of the lowest. It is the system that lags behind in relation to expenditure.
Canada, Cuba, and Mexico are not going to be on the cutting edge of medical research because there is no market incentive for such progress.
With the exception of Cuba, these countries have market economies. A national health care system does not imply the country is not market driven. The other major market economies in the world all have a universal system, which includes, Japan, Germany, UK and France. They are all considered to be better than the US model, and have their own R&D budgets and have made significant advances themselves. Many advances are cross national, with foreign researchers contributing to a pooled effort.
In many ways, it is like Europe and Canada’s free ride on military spending. They can devote a larger chunck of their tax receipts to ridiculous socialist programs because they don’t have to defends themselves. They know the US will do it for them.
It was as a result of defending themselves in wars that Europe decided to devote large chunks of tax money on health. I don’t think there is an assumption in Europe that the US will defend it. US military policy is largely dictated by self preservation, not altruism. It took a bit more than colonial ties to entice the US into WWII. But it is correct that less spent on military means more to spend on health.
The same is true for healthcare. If we decided to transfer from a market orientated system to a single payer, it would mean significantly much less inovation and R&D, which would literally means millions of people across the world would die sooner because they did not receive the latest treatments.
Not necessarily. The US spends significantly more on health than other leading economies, but Americans remain amongst the least healthy, with higher child mortality, shorter life expectancy, and higher rates of fatal ailments. I don’t think the US is giving their research away at the expense of their own citizens. If less was spent on R&D and more on health care, it could conceivably save more lives.
Besides, it is amazing what percentage of the uninsured are very young, illegal aliens, or those that are too lazy to fill out the paperwork for Medicare. Do we really want to funadamentally transform the US economy (and curtailing inovation) for this segment of the population?
It is unlikely that a universal system would fundamentally transform the US economy. Michael Moore’s film didn’t focus on the uninsured. He went to great lengths to show that many victims are the insured.
A lot of people have confused his message with some sort of unpatriotic European left wing social reform mumbo jumbo. To see it that way is bit like reading the bible upside down.
ParticipantWhat is the film really about?
It was an emotional appeal to a nation so used to the preferred medium of sensationalism to make a point …and what a point, but what a sad way to make it. This moving but one-sided documentary failed, in my view, to tackle the real issue of why health care is so expensive, or what the best way to tackle it would be? Making obvious comparisons with Europe is engaging, but when poignant counter-arguments are dismissed with a nonchalance usually associated with French waiters, the viewer is left asking what is the truth? On balance, I’d put my money on half truths, as opposed to outright lies, so he gets my vote. But it remains a sorry plight of a people that one man sees his mission to correct a system gone awry, using highly emotive techniques to do it. So folks, not enough balance here.What does the film achieve?
It has a greater chance of fueling the divisive bipolarity that is becoming more apparent in the US, to which many posts here will testify, than bucking the system. Did Hilary decline to be interviewed for her input? Was she asked? Was anyone asked? Are Americans going to go out on the streets and protest? …I don’t think so. Has is heightened awareness of the issues? Yes, but mainly in the liberal camp who are more savvy when it comes to these issues anyway. Michale Moore is a wonder man, and you have to take your hat off to him, but this was a hard hitting indictment of a way of life, as much as a health care system and isn’t going to endear everyone to his cause, even if they are paying extortionate premiums.What can be done?
Maybe the problem should be tackled and solved at the State level? Perhaps a two tier-system (public/private) based on ability to pay could be introduced? Whatever happened to Mutuals, whose duty was first to policy holders, because there were no shareholders? A highly litigious climate, high tax deductibles in pharmaceuticals, shareholders vs policy holders, morality vs profit, health education and the media’s role, all need to be thrown into the debate, if you want to mobilize a nation to partake in shaping the future.ParticipantWhat is the film really about?
It was an emotional appeal to a nation so used to the preferred medium of sensationalism to make a point …and what a point, but what a sad way to make it. This moving but one-sided documentary failed, in my view, to tackle the real issue of why health care is so expensive, or what the best way to tackle it would be? Making obvious comparisons with Europe is engaging, but when poignant counter-arguments are dismissed with a nonchalance usually associated with French waiters, the viewer is left asking what is the truth? On balance, I’d put my money on half truths, as opposed to outright lies, so he gets my vote. But it remains a sorry plight of a people that one man sees his mission to correct a system gone awry, using highly emotive techniques to do it. So folks, not enough balance here.What does the film achieve?
It has a greater chance of fueling the divisive bipolarity that is becoming more apparent in the US, to which many posts here will testify, than bucking the system. Did Hilary decline to be interviewed for her input? Was she asked? Was anyone asked? Are Americans going to go out on the streets and protest? …I don’t think so. Has is heightened awareness of the issues? Yes, but mainly in the liberal camp who are more savvy when it comes to these issues anyway. Michale Moore is a wonder man, and you have to take your hat off to him, but this was a hard hitting indictment of a way of life, as much as a health care system and isn’t going to endear everyone to his cause, even if they are paying extortionate premiums.What can be done?
Maybe the problem should be tackled and solved at the State level? Perhaps a two tier-system (public/private) based on ability to pay could be introduced? Whatever happened to Mutuals, whose duty was first to policy holders, because there were no shareholders? A highly litigious climate, high tax deductibles in pharmaceuticals, shareholders vs policy holders, morality vs profit, health education and the media’s role, all need to be thrown into the debate, if you want to mobilize a nation to partake in shaping the future.ParticipantIn Europe, where disposible income is generally lower that the US, this is the norm for many people. People just get on with their lives and somehow seem to cope. I wouldn’t say the quality of life is any worse as a result. It’s not until you break it down that it looks scary. I agree that cash is key, because you can only spend what you have. The Japanese success story was based on the fact that they decided on a price to sell at first, and then worked backwards to reduce costs.
ParticipantIn Europe, where disposible income is generally lower that the US, this is the norm for many people. People just get on with their lives and somehow seem to cope. I wouldn’t say the quality of life is any worse as a result. It’s not until you break it down that it looks scary. I agree that cash is key, because you can only spend what you have. The Japanese success story was based on the fact that they decided on a price to sell at first, and then worked backwards to reduce costs.
-
AuthorPosts