remphoto
Established
I guess one needs also add in the cost of gasoline to fuel that Ferrari, which I am guessing is a wee bit higher than the current $3.00/gallon in the U.S.
Also, I am wondering why so many expatriate European actors, rock stars, etc. have set up residence in the U.S.? They must like the weather and California girls, I am guessing. Doubt taxes have anything to do with it.
Also, I am wondering why so many expatriate European actors, rock stars, etc. have set up residence in the U.S.? They must like the weather and California girls, I am guessing. Doubt taxes have anything to do with it.
Olsen
Well-known
I guess one needs also add in the cost of gasoline to fuel that Ferrari, which I am guessing is a wee bit higher than the current $3.00/gallon in the U.S.
Also, I am wondering why so many expatriate European actors, rock stars, etc. have set up residence in the U.S.? They must like the weather and California girls, I am guessing. Doubt taxes have anything to do with it.
The price of fuel cost here in Europe is twice of USA's. The difference is taxes.
Taxes are higher here in Europe. There is no doubt about that. Spoks has shown in an earlier post here a graph comparing the total tax level of USA (about 25%) to the EU countries (40 - 42%) and Norway (43 - 43%).
But the higher taxes includes public services which we take for granted as 'free'. While these services have to be bought from private operators in USA.
Many claim that such a service will be cheaper from a private operators. Must be propaganda. The real world tells something else. Health care cost in USA is a far greater part of US GDP than in countries with a public health care. To take one example.
Olsen
Well-known
I guess one needs also add in the cost of gasoline to fuel that Ferrari, which I am guessing is a wee bit higher than the current $3.00/gallon in the U.S.
Also, I am wondering why so many expatriate European actors, rock stars, etc. have set up residence in the U.S.? They must like the weather and California girls, I am guessing. Doubt taxes have anything to do with it.
A lot of super rich Norwegians move out of the country because of our high taxes. To Monaco, the Bahamas, Singapore, etc. Even to USA. But they come home again when they need high quality health care. Like the wife of a ship owner I know who lives in USA (Stolt Nielsen). When she got cancer she wanted to be treated at a Norwegian hospital.
remphoto
Established
I guess one can argue that the US's medical costs are higher compared
to some other parts of the world because a tremendous amount of medical and pharmaceutical research and development occurs in the US. Nations without this capability still benefit. Why the high level of development -- Capitalism?
BTW, I want to thank this forum for its civil discussion regarding these issues. Political forums in which I have participated generally would have gotten into name-calling and flame-throwing by post #5.
Olsen
Well-known
Sorry, but I don't believe that for a minute.
Practically all nations of the world are engaged in 'publicly' financed medical research. Much of the result of that research ends up as property of the large multi national medical companies, through some funny ways. Then we all have to buy back what we already have paid for.
Since all health care companies in USA are 'companies', they are allowed to keep secret figures on efficiency and quality. Doesn't sound reassuring to me.
I claim that US health care is some 30 - 40% more expensive than European public health care due to 1)low efficiency 2)all too high CEO salaries (typical of USA) and that insurance companies are within the health care industry loop.
photobizzz
Speak of the Devil
Well as an active duty member of the United States military I will happily accept the congratulations - imagine that; a Non-Commissioned Officer in the US Army that is not a right wing conservative
I truly hope the bill succeeds in improving health care for Americans who need it, and isn't perverted by politicians too much over the years to come. I already belong to the largest group health care in the US, and while not perfect my family or I have never been refused care and I have had one $100,000 operation and am about to have another, so I hope others are able to get the same level of care I do.
We are still in Germany. We won that war, too.
We have bases in Italy and Japan. South Korea. And many more.
If you watched the (Al Jazeera) video, you would see why we are still there...to support the Iraqi forces who are now in charge.
And if you read the Michael Yon piece, you will have seen this:
"What's left is messy politics that likely will be punctuated by low-level violence and the occasional spectacular attack."
Hell, our boys are getting SHOT AT OVER HERE. (Ft. Hood.)
By the way, thanks for your service, Colin.
I disagree. The US system is a hodge-podge mess. It's neither public nor private. Even the new bill is neither. It's much worse than what we have now.
Changing nothing would have been better...
Olsen
Well-known
I was a skiing instructor for no 42 Commando of Royal Marines at Mjølfjell, Norway. Must have been 1970. Were you there?
This is worth 5,000 words.
2006 -- liberals take over Congress. Hang on, it's a rough ride after that.
2006 -- liberals take over Congress. Hang on, it's a rough ride after that.
remphoto
Established
1) Low efficiency, maybe. Every hospital wants its own MRI, etc. But there is not normally a wait to get these tests. In the case of my wife, who has survived both ovarian and bladder cancer, the ability to get quick tests allowed the disease to be defeated before it took root.
2)CEO Salaries are a red herring. They amount to a rounding error in the finances of a major corporation. But they do tend to rally the public and take their focus off more important issues.
Last edited:
Olsen
Well-known
They are far more than just rounding errors! It's big money!
Olsen
Well-known
digitalintrigue,
Are you trying to convince us that we will all be better off with George Bush & Republicans in the White House? That will be a momentous task!
The first graph, with the 'Personal Disposable Income' does not tell the whole story. The dollar halved it's value from 2000 to 2007. So, the purchasing power of the ordinary American fell in the same period....
Are you trying to convince us that we will all be better off with George Bush & Republicans in the White House? That will be a momentous task!
The first graph, with the 'Personal Disposable Income' does not tell the whole story. The dollar halved it's value from 2000 to 2007. So, the purchasing power of the ordinary American fell in the same period....
remphoto
Established
As a random example, the company with which our business carries its employee healthcare insurance,United Healthcare's CEO's 2009 Total Compensation: $3,241,042. Fourth Quarter 2009 earnings $944,000,000 (i'm guessing close to $4 Billion earnings for full year). His salary is pretty insignificant in comparison and IMHO not that great given the scope of his responsibilities. Having to deal with Congress, alone, should be worth combat pay.
As I previously stated, discussions of CEO salaries are a red herring that obscures the real issues.
Not really. In America, history shows tax cuts work. Revenues actually go UP. Tax increases and more debt don't. The health control bill will be a mess for citizens and for doctors. We have problems in both parties...there is fault to be found everywhere.
Also it had to be pointed out that the rich...the top 40%...paid MORE taxes under Bush. Everyone wants to be rich, but seems to hate those that are. I have always found that rather ironic.
That pretty much sums it up.
In America, history shows tax cuts work. Revenues actually go UP. Tax increases and more debt don't. The health control bill will be a mess for citizens and for doctors. We have problems in both parties...there is fault to be found everywhere.Also it had to be pointed out that the rich...the top 40%...paid MORE taxes under Bush. Everyone wants to be rich, but seems to hate those that are. I have always found that rather ironic.
That pretty much sums it up.
Last edited by a moderator:
Two years ago, the CBO thought Social Security would not be in the red until 2019.
It's in the red now.
Five years ago, the Democratic party assured us the program would remain solvent for decades.
Various and sundry congressman assured us Fannie and Freddie were safe. We all know what happened.
These people have always been wrong.
They just compounded their errors with trillions of deficit spending from a bill none of them read.
We are headed for a meltdown but we should not accept the inevitable.
It's in the red now.
Five years ago, the Democratic party assured us the program would remain solvent for decades.
Various and sundry congressman assured us Fannie and Freddie were safe. We all know what happened.
These people have always been wrong.
They just compounded their errors with trillions of deficit spending from a bill none of them read.
We are headed for a meltdown but we should not accept the inevitable.
Olsen
Well-known
As a random example, the company with which our business carries its employee healthcare insurance,United Healthcare's CEO's 2009 Total Compensation: $3,241,042. Fourth Quarter 2009 earnings $944,000,000 (i'm guessing close to $4 Billion earnings for full year). His salary is pretty insignificant in comparison and IMHO not that great given the scope of his responsibilities. Having to deal with Congress, alone, should be worth combat pay.
Your example is not extreme compared to other US CEO salaries.
But that a company turns over 4 billion US$ does not justify a salary of 3,5 million $. That's my opinion. With all respect for the CEO's importance, but I am sure that there is also thousand other employees of this company that deserves a good salary. The more the CEO gets the less there is for the others. What's for sure; CEO salaries don't crate growth.
Do this CEO get a stock option on top of this?
parsec1
parsec1
No but a little further 'East' at that time.
Perhaps you were with some of our 'MAWC' .
Thank you and respect for your 'instructions' and knowledge.
I know how much they are/were appreciated.
Olsen
Well-known
Not really.
Sorry, but this is not true.
1)
It really does not matter if the government spends the money or a private citizen does it. It will circulate regardless. The money creates no more 'growth' regardless who spends it.
2)
Borrowing money might create growth. Short term. But then it have to be paid back. If the borrowed money have not been invested into something that can create future income, infrastructure, or oil drillings or building of factories that can produce goods that can pay back the loans, the pay back will create negative growth.
Olsen
Well-known
Were you in Norway at all?
What is a MAWC..?
I was (as far as I can remember) in contact with British units three or four times. A unit I can't remember the name of at 'Winter Express' (1969?). Then no 3 Para at Gudbrandsdalen (they were ill prepared for winter war, back then) and no 42 Commando at Mjølfjell, who were quite good skiers. I also held a course/presentation for British officers at Fleishers Hotel, Voss. Must have been 1970 too.
Military skiing is something far less spectacular than what you see on TV from the Winter Olymics and so on. It is about how to go skiing with a heavy equipment, being towed after snowmobiles, prepare the skis for different snow conditions - and so on. It was quite popular to be allowed to do these courses. The British gave us booze which they had flagrantly smuggled into the country. So, we were richly rewarded.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.