Tired of privatization?

[777 fixer]

It isn't these companies.

So the governments of these countries are printing money to pay for it?

In Germany the employee and the employer split the cost of health insurance 50/50. In Canada the system is funded by corporate and income taxes at the federal and provincial level.

 

[Cosworth]

Health care is not free any where. Someone pays for it somewhere down the line. The folks making money are you and I. We pay for it at some point. We either pay for it at the front in or the back end. Either through pay roll taxes, or we pay for it when we receives services. The Europeans pay for it at the front end with pay roll taxes. We pay for it on the front a bit with premiums and on the back with delectables and the like. The difference seems to be the profits that the medical industry makes. My brother in law just had to have his second open heart. The bills are over $1 million for the stay. They have AARP so they are covered 100%. In other countries the cost of medical care is quite a bit less. Everyone in the process makes quite a bit less. Health care seems to be considered more of a service than a way to get a mansion and a Porsche. I believe the latter part is what needs to change in this country.

 

[delldude]

Recently on the nightly news there was a story about oil drilling in South Dakota. For a long time drilling there was prohibitively expensive. Mainly due to the technology needed and the low cost of oil. Now with advances in oil drilling technology and the price of oil being high it has become profitable to drill there.

This means farmers who happen to own that land are getting some hefty royalty checks. We have all read stories about farmers barely making it or getting wiped out due to drought or flood. With the money they are getting they can sleep a bit easier at night. The question I have to ask do you think the government should come in and "nationalize" their land?

Isn't this what they refer to as oil shale?

I see the dems keep trying to stop exploration/production in the interest of saving the planet.

 

[KCFlyer]

Isn't this what they refer to as oil shale?

I see the dems keep trying to stop exploration/production in the interest of saving the planet.

While the technology has indeed advanced, the oil recovered from "oil shale" would result in $5 a gallon gasoline. I don't think oil companies would want to make the investment if the result is a price that is high enough to reduce demand for it. It's easier to blame the democrats than admit that it's the profit motive that is keeping shale oil from being recovered.

 

[TonyB]

Now it's my trun to type slowly. Could you provide actual evidence that a privatized system in the US would be "less superior".

We all know how efficiently AA operates.

 

[777 fixer]

Recently on the nightly news there was a story about oil drilling in South Dakota. For a long time drilling there was prohibitively expensive. Mainly due to the technology needed and the low cost of oil. Now with advances in oil drilling technology and the price of oil being high it has become profitable to drill there.

This means farmers who happen to own that land are getting some hefty royalty checks. We have all read stories about farmers barely making it or getting wiped out due to drought or flood. With the money they are getting they can sleep a bit easier at night. The question I have to ask do you think the government should come in and "nationalize" their land?

Interesting article.

< http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/e...-drilling_N.htm >