>>Its not that difficult if you have a customer base. New products arrive on shelves every day. Besides, the internet has made it easier than ever to start selling your wares.
>
>Well, it's not as easy as you think - look at the link to my wife's shop on Etsy (another fine community) in my signature below. Start selling is the easy part, getting them out the door is the hard part.

It's easier to "start" selling your wares. You still have to develop a customer base to be successful.

>
>>The rest of the world's costs are up there as well they're just paid by the government. Which taxes the people. The fact that the citizens don't pay it out of pocket doesn't mean they aren't paying for it.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared

Interesting entry, but hardly a comprehensive comparison. The discussion section is interesting.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicly-funded_health_care
>

This article is under a "neutrality and factual accuracy" dispute. Here too, the discussion section is quite interesting.

>>The stockholders are the owners. The company have an obligation to them as well as the patients.
>
>But the patients are the ones who pay for all that, and shouldn't they, as customers, come first? And then the profits would naturally come from satisfied customers.
>

Of course. At the same time the patients have a choice of whether or not to use the HMO. If they feel their care is not up to par then they may choose another option.

>>We agree it can be done better. Where we differ is the how. I believe that government needs to be starved of funding. Very few programs for it to oversee so that there is less to get their hands on. Less earmarks, less pork, less outright bribery. Let the private sector and market forces drive the costs down through competition.
>
>In the case of health, look up the "information assymetry" part in the Wikipedia articles I linked above. It's actually the socialized health care systems that achieve lower costs, simply because of their competence in the negotiations and buying power.
>

Those articles are hardly the definitive word on costs.

>And don't forget that the market forces have already priced out about 17% of Americans out of the system market.

Personal choice has a lot to do with that 17%. How can you be priced out of medicare?

>
>>The government does several things well, when they are focused on them. Infrastructure, military, police, fire...
>
>Speaking of police, I still don't understand why there are so many different kinds of police - ATF, sheriff's office, city police, state police, feds, university police... someone posted a list here recently, and it was about two dozen of them operating in the same area.
>

There are many different types of criminals. ;)

>>You do not have to participate in your employers HMO. You have a choice.
>
>Had that only once and it was either sign in or not - and that was just on my first job here. And when I needed some of it, they didn't reimburse me a single dime. Actually yes, one prescription I paid $10 instead of $30, and that was all. For the rest, I had to pay everything because of this or that thing in the small print.
>

I assume you were forced at gunpoint to take the job.

>>The main problem stems from its flawed design. Originally there were some 12-15 people paying for 1 person's SS. Now its like 2-1, and its getting worse because people are living longer and longer. Add in the influx of baby-boomers who are starting to retire and the system is in dire straits. If it isn't reformed it's going to require more and more outside funding as the ration moves in the other direction.
>
>With the current trend (and the '93 fix, or whenever was it) it should be doing fine until 2040. After that, it'd be sufficient to up the cap from 90K to maybe 120 or so, IOW adjust the cap for inflation. Doesn't sound doomed to me.
>

There is a ton of debate about this. One thing's for sure, we'll find out within the next 10 years as the baby-boomers start collecting.

>>>After they were heavily deregulated during Reagan's term. Now they have to put some of the checks and balances back.
>>
>>Reagan's policies led to the greatest economic expansion in history. Not just for the US but worldwide.
>
>May as well be. But it also removed a lot of checks and balances which made Enron/Anderson possible.
>

The benefits of Reagan's economic policies vastly outweight the ills of a few thieves. A determined thief will always find a way to steal.

Regretably I do not have time to finish a proper response. I am heading out of town. I'll continue when I return after the 5th.

Happy 4th of July!


>>>I guess this is a major cultural difference. Designated areas for this or that vs spontaneity.
>>
>>Cultural or a difference in the countries. Here private property rights are taken as the backbone of our freedom. Without the right to own ones own property, freedom doesn't exist.
>
>It's the rights to what you can do with your property and how much power over people on it you may have. It's quite limited even here (qv in http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671162519?v=glance, which I happened to read back in 1977). The cultural difference here is in the list of these limitations. Calling the police for some guys who are standing in front of your shop for hours and just talking would get you nothing but a bad name in Serbia (and probably huge chunks of Europe as well). Here, you'd be exercising your rights.
>

>>More millionaires means that more people are moving up the economic chain as well as down.
>
>And leaving the middle pretty much less populated, q.e.d.? Inconsequent, just like my previous sentence. The median is going down, while there are more millionaires. That means that the disproportion is growing.
>
>>>So, it's a war except when it isn't, and it isn't a war except when it is. They are at war, but when they're captured they don't get any of POW status and no law applies to them;
>>
>>They do not get POW status as they are not soldiers. I do agree that they need to be charged and tried.
>
>In a regular court, if not military, not the special monkey courts where they can't even see the evidence against them (which, I presume, can't be seen by prosecution either, being nonexistent in many cases).
>
>>>none of the occupying force's obligations by Geneva convention applies
>>
>>The Geneva convention applies to soldiers not terrorists, insurgents nor spies.
>
>The Geneva convention also lists a bunch of things an occupying force must and another of things it must not do. Nothing to do with the opposing forces and whether they are regular or not, just civilian matters.
>
>>Many and in each administration. Clinton fired how many members of the travel office to put in his own firm? He brought how many people with him from Arkansas to work in his administration?
>
>I'd like to see a comprehensive list, with qualifications of each guy and how did they do on their jobs, put together by an independent body. To cover last 50 years at least. I'm curious to know how'd it look.
>
>>>This administration seems to have replaced anyone competent with just about anyone who helped a lot in the elections. Just look at the Heckuva Brownie and his predecessor.
>>>
>>
>>We disagree. Of course we disagree on Iraq so...
>
>Are you saying Brownie and his roommate were great?
>
>>>>I hope you read national review also for a little balance. :)
>>>
>>>Does Harper's count? :)
>>
>>The Wall Street Journal at least? ;)
>
>My son-in-law is subscribed and professionally interested, so I get their content through his interpretations. Makes for nice discussions :).