Corrupt and Integral Tradition present the hottest book on radical environmentalism this year:
Pentti Linkola's "Can Life Prevail?"
Readers' comments about the book:
Environmentalism does not make sense when approached from most angles. Linkola's version makes perfect sense.
Linkola's cry, "Can Life Prevail?," does not just ask the question--it provides us with an answer to how we can win.
His flavor of radical environmentalism deserves a hearing and wider audience.
I don't agree with a lot of what he says but Linkola deserves to be respected for his honesty.
by Alex Birch
What you learn early in life is that nothing comes free, and if it does, it's probably crap anyway. Yet, people insist on upholding free-isms as some kind of salvation from the pre-WWII order. Unsurprisingly, they're often dead wrong. Take the ObamaCare for instance, which is everything but "free":
The $1 trillion number doesn’t even tickle the meter, and that’s a big problem for Democrats. They argue that the reforms will save a trillion dollars, making ObamaCare deficit-neutral over ten years, but none of the plans come in under that price. Just to move 30% net of the uninsured onto health plans will take more that $300 billion above that ceiling, making it an addition to an already astronomical deficit pattern.
What exactly does $4 trillion and a public plan buy us, besides even higher deficits over the next ten years? A “medium” level of generosity for the Silver plan, with an “average” level of access to physicians and hospitals. On top of that, the plan still underpays providers with even the 10% boost over Medicare payments, which no one is suggesting will remain permanent. And that will only still cover “nearly everyone,” a measure Dr. Parente doesn’t explain in his statement.
In other words, almost a third of all covered Americans would get thrown out of their current plans and onto government-paid care.
$4 trillion of dazzling debt and the beginning of the end for the private health care sector? That is starting to sound like European-modeled socialism to me. I know, because I live in one of the most tax-burdened and socialist nations in the whole of Europe. Although Obama claims he's not trying to implement our system, let's review some of the negative consequences of systems close to the one he has in mind:
In Britain, France, Switzerland and elsewhere, public health systems have become political punching bags for opposition parties, costs have skyrocketed and in some cases, patients have needlessly suffered and died.
"I would warn Americans that once the government gets its nose into health care, it's hard to stop the dangerous effects later," said Valentin Petkantchin, of the Institut Economique Molinari in France. He said many private providers have been pushed out, forcing a dependence on an overstretched public system.
"The minute you make health insurance mandatory, people start overusing it," said Dr. Alphonse Crespo, an orthopedic surgeon and research director at Switzerland's Institut Constant de Rebecque. "If I have a cold, I might go see a doctor because I am already paying a health insurance premium."
All of this really goes down to the inherent problems with socialism: although a pleasant idea (?), it usually doesn't work out in the end, because:
(1) It speeds up costs, raises taxes and slowly turns everyone, including the productive middle class, into welfare-addicts.
(2) It generates insane amounts of bureaucracy that handle most issues very poorly.
(3) It reduces individual freedom for the sake of government-sponsored cohesion, effectively replacing social community culture with carrot-stick incentives like lobbying and entertainment.
(4) It reduces individual creativity and innovation within most fields of culture, science and business.
(5) During economic meltdowns, the quality of state-run services drop drastically, slowly wiping out the middle class.
Sweden has currently got a high-quality health care system, but what's the point of having it if it only lasts for a few generations? Signs are already awash that we don't have any money left to finance it, and patients suffer because there's nowhere else to go (only the rich can afford advanced operations at private clinics). The system is slowly collapsing in under its own weight, despite these insane tax rates:
| Country | Corporate | Individual | Payroll tax | VAT / GST / Sales | |
| Sweden | 26.3% | 28.89%-59.09% | 32.42% | 25%. 12% and 6% for some goods. | |
| America | 15-39% (federal) 0-12% (state) | 0-35% (federal) 0-10.3% (state) | 15.3% (federal) | 0-10.25% (state and local) |
A system like that cannot be sustained by a people going through a severe demographic change, which is why Europe is hot for immigration, illegal or legal. It knows it cannot finance that health care empire unless there are young people bringing in taxes. Unfortunately for Europe, the assimilation record is dangerously unimpressive, and the system keeps growing more and more expensive along with the rest of the state-run services.
This is not a sustainable way of ensuring that citizens have access to high-quality health care, no matter what the Obamarama crowd pretends.
Comments
Everyone's got complaints and
Everyone's got complaints and generalizations, but does anyone have a solution? It's ridiculous to say that health care in America at present is perfect...
Solution?
Scrap the whole thing and copy another country that has successful healthcare e.g. Canada is one that's often quoted for 'free' healthcare as a good model.
It really depends on what your practical definition for perfect healthcare is. There're just multiple avenues for healthcare and different agendas of what that constitutes: perfect population health, reasonable access by all, maximum economic revenue generated via ensuring a healthy productive population, ensuring the best trained staff with the best communication skills (i.e. fluent in the local language(s)!), making maximum use of the people who're best qualified for the job, giving people the best qualification and training, access to most advanced healthcare to as many as possible, leading and accessing the latest in health research.
In order to identify the solution, the problem needs to be reasoned out. If, indeed, there is one and proposed changes that can be practically made will lead to a worse outcome rather than a better one.
Paying For Obese People's Food
What free healthcare apparently amounts to:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/8132774.stm
That's exactly what you'd want your taxes to be spent on, is it?
an American perspective
In hilarious fashion, the only people who are truly for this "government run" health care thing in Amerika are people who live with their parents or are just liberals on a pedastal trying to make everyone feel like they can understand true pain (plenty of THOSE where I live).
Here are some facts:
- the government is already knee deep in the health care system. Insurance companies were created via HMO's, and that was done via government measure in the 70s. Costs skyrocketed; no more doctors coming to your home. Once that generation of doctors who were still around for cheap health care retired, we were left with a mess.
- I know a couple of people from Italy, who both say part of the reason they're not having kids until their late 30s/early 40s is not just the bad economy but because illegal Albanian and Romanian immigrants take up ER space and Italian mothers get butted out by women who aren't even paying into the system they're stealing benefits from. In Massachusetts, it's currently "illegal" to NOT have health care coverage, but you fill the form out with your taxes....so....illegals who don't file taxes get to ride the free gravy train in the ER but people who are lifelong residents get fined if they can't provide proof of health insurance each year. See the backward logic yet?
With HMOs, my tax money is going toward other people's health coverage, and that shouldn't be the case. Health "insurance" these days is a misnomer: it used to be that you had insurance, or insurance against awful things happening to you. Routine checkups and a broken leg wouldn't cost nearly as much in real dollars as they do today, and again, doctors made housecalls because malpractice lawsuits weren't big. Gov't is already fully involved in the American health care system, Obamas plan still leaves 37 million uninsured vs. the current 50 million, so even the folks parroting about "free" health care are not understanding that it's far from universal.
One last bit - I know a few doctors personally, a couple of relatives and a family friend - all of them say that will be the death of the profession here.
Nothing's Free
Free healthcare vs. private:
-- bad healthcare for all vs. good healthcare for some.
-- incompetently and uniformly run by politicised state with tendency to badly allocate funds vs. competitively, efficiently, prioritised cost-efficiently run practice
-- low socioeconomic level getting most benefits (being unhealthiest) while contributing least (we're taking those on heavy benefits rather than 'blue collar' workers) vs. getting what you pay for.
-- resignation to service you receive except via voting/fruitless complaints vs. choice and input into your care
-- rich: paying heavy taxes for someone else to benefit AND private insurance if you have any sense vs. paying heavy insurance for yourself to benefit.
-- poor: light taxes but still getting bad healthcare vs. can't afford good insurance but still getting emergency care in well run establishments.
Seems like my view on this has become quite clear. I would completely support free healthcare if unlimited money managed to grow on trees and there was enough cashflow to make everything run beautifully despite all the budgeting incompetencies of a government-run organisation.