One problem with the Liberal Agenda is that they simple ignore the basic fact that many people who earn lots of money have put in years of hard work, education and training to get the experience to earn that money.
Take this recent comment from liberal economist site Tax Research UK:
It costs £32 to see a GP in Jersey. The shape of things to come under the Tories in the UK? I suspect so. - Tax Research, UKI left the following comment which was promptly deleted by the blog author since it does not fit with his message.
And just how valuable is a doctor's time? In the US, those with insurance pay a co-pay. Those without insurance get to see a doctor for free when they want their kids to see a doctor. I asked the reception why they are not asked to pay a small $10-$15 fee like everyone else. I was told flatly that if they had to pay anything, they would not bring their kids to see a doctor. It is not about affording the fee. The waiting area was packed with 'poor' children wearing expensive shoes, playing electronic games.
Everyone should pay. Those who cannot afford it get assistance money. Everyone else has to make choices when it come to money. Maybe the poorest are in that situation because they do not have to save for necessities as the state takes care of it... - Fred Fry
Yes, wages are not equal in the modern world. The left's answer to this is to simply tax the hell out of those who spend years learning a trade or getting experience to be experts in their field. They totally ignore the inconvenient detail that the doctor they are demanding to see for free spent eight or more years learning to be a doctor.
Yes, in some countries the doctor's education fees are paid by the state, but still the state is dependent on the student to dedicate years of time to study to become a doctor. No amount of money in the world is going to turn someone into a doctor if they do not want to become one, or are not interested in putting in the time and effort required as part of the education. Simply put, not everyone can be a doctor.
If you could, then why not send all the poor to school to learn trades. But wait, there are already educational opportunities available for poor and minorities. So the opportunity is available, provided people are willing to put in the effort to take advantage of it. Take US Federal Academies. They are 'free' but put students through a very demanding program. Since the Academies have been traditionally under-represented by minorities, it is very easy for them to get accepted, and still they have a hard time finding minority students to take advantage of the opportunity. (Part of the problem is that qualified minority candidates also have many other attractive competing offers available to them.)
If you could, then why not send all the poor to school to learn trades. But wait, there are already educational opportunities available for poor and minorities. So the opportunity is available, provided people are willing to put in the effort to take advantage of it. Take US Federal Academies. They are 'free' but put students through a very demanding program. Since the Academies have been traditionally under-represented by minorities, it is very easy for them to get accepted, and still they have a hard time finding minority students to take advantage of the opportunity. (Part of the problem is that qualified minority candidates also have many other attractive competing offers available to them.)
At the end of the day, the full price of the products and services offered need to be paid for. Take this comment:
Older Russians invariably recall the Soviet era as a time of stability and social security, if not prosperity, and feel they have suffered unfairly from the social turmoil and repeated economic crises of the past two decades.
"You could buy a loaf of bread for 16 kopeks (cents), and that was a stable price for many, many years," says Alevtina Dimitrieva, a Moscow pensioner. "Now the price is different every day. The authorities promise to raise our pensions, but even when that happens, rising prices gobble up the increase immediately." - Christian Science Monitor
One of the problems of the Soviet Union was that prices almost never reflected the true cost. In the example above, the cost of bread was determined by the central Government. This of course also goes for other things, such as wages. That was another problem of the Soviet System, even if they could get everyone to accept that they were all equal and all earning their 'fair share', people would either not accept it or not be satisfied with what they were being compensated.
Think of it as if everyone agrees to work their hardest so that everyone can have a home, two cars and a boat for their family. It is a great idea until someone decides that they don't want to work hard enough for the boat.
Think of it as if everyone agrees to work their hardest so that everyone can have a home, two cars and a boat for their family. It is a great idea until someone decides that they don't want to work hard enough for the boat.
And with that is where the socialist system falls apart. So the system we have includes a level of inequality. But it is not just a level of inequality in terms of wages, but also in terms of work input.
P.S. Do not take this post as dismissal of the notion that some people are in need and need assistance. I am sure that there are people who need public support. My problem is that there are so many people taking advantage of the system, or not taking advantage of ways to escape from poverty (such as moving to where the jobs are) that it is all but impossible to identify who these people are. In addition, many in need are being buried in all sorts of aid programs. Shouldn't one of these cover family expenses? (And if we are going to give 'free' health care to the poor, how about having them use a portion of their unemployment, welfare, whatever payments as a payment for the insurance.)
That said, if the poor have the expectation that they too are expected to pay their fair share, then I am pretty sure that they will adjust their habits and pay when needed.
Unfortunately, the effects of attacking the financial incentive to become a doctor are spreading to the US:
That said, if the poor have the expectation that they too are expected to pay their fair share, then I am pretty sure that they will adjust their habits and pay when needed.
Unfortunately, the effects of attacking the financial incentive to become a doctor are spreading to the US:
The new federal health-care law has raised the stakes for hospitals and schools already scrambling to train more doctors.I simply do not understand the insistence of the left to destroy the concept of cost and value. Not only that, but they also seem to have a very short memory of how horrible typical Government-run 'customer service' really is! It is a shame that we are all being forced down this path for the sake of a painful reminder.
Experts warn there won't be enough doctors to treat the millions of people newly insured under the law. At current graduation and training rates, the nation could face a shortage of as many as 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.
That shortfall is predicted despite a push by teaching hospitals and medical schools to boost the number of U.S. doctors, which now totals about 954,000. - Wall Street Journal
No comments:
Post a Comment