Posted on 11/02/2006 11:56:52 AM PST by indthkr
I don't know anything about the French system, but the Japanese system does seem to work for Japanese --- at least now: with the coming demographic shift in Japan, I am not sure that it will continue to be viable there.
However, I am also not sure the Japanese system would work here, since the U.S. is quite different. In particular, I think that our litigiousness would probably derail trying to model our system after Japan.
the lawsuits are part of it, yes. but there is more to it then that.
I also like the "medical 401K" MSA model - with some twists.
the contributions come from 3 components - employee, employer (mandated), and government (consumption tax, because something has to be done to include people who currently pay nothing). government workers also go into this plan. out of your medical 401K, you buy the private insurance plan of your choice.
but I agree, that politically, universal medicare is the likely outcome of all of this.
"Do you propose a solution, or shall we close up our borders and trade with nobody?"
Yes, I do propose a complete and fair solution.
There are certain "givens" of American life which we've established for good reasons, based on experience: Social Security, Worker's Compensation, Unemployment Insurance, OSHA, child labor laws, universal education, minimum wage laws, maximum hourly work weeks after which overtime must be paid.
All of that stuff is expensive for employers, employees, the whole economy. The REASON that foreign labor is so cheap, whether you exploit it in China or use illegal aliens here, is precisely BECAUSE you don't have to pay all that overhead.
Chinese slaves make socks for about a dime. They get sold here for $1. American sockmakers...when there used to be some...were far more efficient at making a given pair of socks, but all that mandatory overhead made the socks cost $3.
The answer, the whole answer, is to impose import tarriffs that equalize the effect that non-protection of foreign workforces has on price. So, for example, there would be no import tarriff from Japan or Europe: their workers and employers pay the same or more than American workers and employers do, and have comparable or greater protections. But Chinese socks would have a $2 equalization tarriff imposed on them, to increase the price of those imports to compensate for the fact that they were made by unprotected slaves abroad. Note that shifting Chinese goods to a less-oppressive place like Indonesia doesn't avoid the tarriff. (This is why you can't just ban the goods from the really bad places but import them cheap from less bad places: the goods get made in the bad places but shipped raw, to have the labels sewn on them in the less-bad places, defeating the whole purpose of the ban. By contrast, impose the equalization tarriff, and the socks from Indonesia, which doesn't have worker protections to speak of either, get hit with just about the same $2 tarriff, so there's no defeating it.)
Equalization tarriffs are the answer. They protect American businesses from the effects of foreign non-protection of workers, without, however, raising the drawbridge on free trade with other countries that DO protect their workers.
This does indeed impose costs on the American consumer. No doubt about it. They have to pay $3 for a pair of socks they currently pay $1 for. That $2 difference can be bandied about as a 200% increase, by those who would oppose the idea, but this is not something that would hit the entire economy. This is something that would particularly hit consumer goods, and that 200% does not slide all the way up the scale. More expensive things don't have the same huge profit margin in them that cheap things do, because even China doesn't use slaves to make more sophisticated manufactured goods.
That's the answer.
OK...you say "This does indeed impose costs on the American consumer. No doubt about it. They have to pay $3 for a pair of socks they currently pay $1 for. That $2 difference can be bandied about as a 200% increase, by those who would oppose the idea, but this is not something that would hit the entire economy. This is something that would particularly hit consumer goods, and that 200% does not slide all the way up the scale."
How much though? Does a DVD player go from $40 to $475? Or $40 to $60? If you think about the plethora of goods manufactured overseas in cheap markets, the average consumer could easily spend TWICE as much as they do now buying things, or just not buy them. Either way, decreasing consumer spending to a point that could cause a large depression.
Nah, world health insurance. Isn't there something about a Healthy People 2010?
tariffs will not happen. the only way to rebalance the equation - is to raise taxes on consumption of these goods at the point of sale, and lower taxes on wages.
Neither of those things are going to happen either.
So, you're all going to end up serfs.
How much did the last American-made televisions cost vis-a-vis their foreign competition, before the Americans went out of that business a few years ago?
Suppose a DVD player does cost $475. How many do people need?
Remember, the choice is not between having what we have now or having less. It's between having massive job insecurity and gradually being redduced in wages and protections, down to third world levels, or spending more and preserving the protections we have.
To compete with Chinese goods, we have to abandon social security, unemployment insurance, child labor laws, OSHA, and just go straight for serfdom. Otherwise, they win, because slaves are the cheapest possible labor, and the slaves aren't going to be agitating for greater rights, bringing up their costs. We will either proptect ourselves, by accepting the higher costs, or we will race with them to the Asian labor market bottom.
In America, we will either close the border, or there will be no work for unskilled and semi-skilled American labor, because no comparable American can compete with an unprotected Mexican. The Mexican works just as hard, and costs half as much.
There is no job in America - none except political jobs and government jobs - that are not just like the plight of the American laborer trying to compete with the Mexican laborer, or the American textile worker trying to compete with the Chinese slave. Europe, at least, has protected itself sufficiently that it still HAS a large domestic manufacturing sector. In America, to save a buck, we ship the jobs offshore, and give the American company a tax deduction for the cost of foreign labor!
YOU are paying, out of YOUR taxes (YOU dont'get the tax deduction), for your employer to ship YOUR job to the equally qualified, hungrier and cheaper foreigner who will eventually drive down your wages and drive you out of a job completely. Even doctors - skilled labor - are not safe. Legal jobs are being offshored to India.
Be government, be a capitalist, or be a service-sector guy with little protection.
Pay $475 for the DVD player and accept the economic constriction in the short term in order to preserve the American manufacturing base and security of employ in the longer term.
You don't NEED any but most people could get by with one if they wanted one. That's not my point. The point is if, using the DVD player example, sales of DVD players drop 95% then suddenly these protected American jobs will disappear anyway because NOBODY WILL BE BUYING THEM.
Fire retardent bloomers time, get ready.
As long as they come here from somewhere else, at least that was my latest experience.
Guess you haven't visited lately...
Texas, or India?
The only surprising thing is that that this hasn't happened earlier... Many hospitals in India and Thailand, and probably other places too, provide better quality care than the best ones in Britain. I found this website: http://www.globalhealthhub.com that has some good information on the topic.
Out-source our lawyers next?
I have always wondered what the word "universal" really means. Just a word that belies it's meaning?
As a reminder, Medicare or Medicaid do not pay for medical costs incurred in a foreign country. Private coverage does.
Yeah, I know. I bought a Universal remote control and was vastly disappointed when it only changed channels on my TV.
I had hoped I could at least zap liberals at a distance and see if shock therapy cured their disease.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.