>>>It's easier to "start" selling your wares. You still have to develop a customer base to be successful.
>
>That's what I was saying all along. You see, in socialism (at least in SFRY), you could have an easy start by simply renting a stall at the marketplace and you could sell pretty much anything (except weapons, drugs, gold and a few other controlled things), and you'd at least have your wares exposed to a number of eyes within hours. Much more exposed than by having a website - there were people passing by.
>

Things must be different down there. Up north we have numerous "markets" where one can set up a stall. Simply fill out a form and you're ready to set up. Foot traffic depends on the event your at but is quite steady. There are dozens of farm stands in the Sacramento region alone, and when strawberries are in season the number jumps to hundreds. When I was in Berkeley there were vendors selling stuff on the street every day.

>"Building customer base"... of course that's the hard part here.
>

Always is. :)

>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared
>>>
>>>Interesting entry, but hardly a comprehensive comparison. The discussion section is interesting.
>
>Still, how come Canada has a system where nobody is left behind, yet it costs about half the amount per capita? Are they that much smarter?
>

I'll venture a few guesses:
No price controls on prescription drugs
Higher funding levels on research & development
Higher malpractice insurance costs
Higher legal costs

As I understand, Canada does not allow "pain and suffering" awards. This would lower the costs of legal action tremendously.

>>>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.
>
>How would they know? Spend days reading the fine print, then get seriously ill just to test the quality? Then can't qualify for most of the others because of a preexisting condition?

With the internet we can look up just about anything and get numerous testimonials from previous "buyers". There are many websites, forums and blogs devoted to healthcare providers.

>>>Personal choice has a lot to do with that 17%. How can you be priced out of medicare?
>
>Out of medicare? By not being old enough.
>

Oops. I should've included both. :)

>Out of medicaid? Just like I was priced out of many things back home - by earning just $0.50 above the cap, and not stooping down to forgery. The bar is set quite low, and rarely adjusted for inflation,so it's quite easy to earn just enough not to be poor enough, and quite not enough to be scared by prices of medical services.
>

That is not being priced out that is not being eligible. Medicaid is a safety net for the poor, elderly and disabled.

In addition, health care coverage can be acquired with pre-tax dollars, thus reducing one's tax burden.

Here's a 2006 California example:
John Smith earns $836.50/month (Medi-Cal limit is under $836/mon to qualify)
John earns $10038/year
Federal income tax = $ 7550 * 10% + 2488 * 15% = $1128
California income tax = $10038 * 2% = $ 200.76
John spends $2548 (from the wikipedia article) on health coverage. Since these are pre-tax dollars he lowers his taxable income to $7490, thus:
Federal income tax = 7490 * 10% = $749
California income tax = 7490 * 1% = $ 74.90
($1128 + $200.76) - ($749 + $124) = Savings of $455.76
Now subtract the tax savings from the health care cost and you get:
$2548-$455.76 = $2092.24 (much closer to the $1886 sighted in the article)

If John is married with children or head-of household his tax burden will drop to zero. In addition if he has even minimal deductions (mortgage, loan interest) he'll have zero tax burden as well, thanks to the lowering of his pre-tax dollars through his health coverage.

>Last summer we went home, three of us, paid about $1300 each for airfare, and had a bunch of dental work done for about $1200 total. Yes, at a private dentist - who still has to compete with a bunch of other private dentists and the social-security-health-funded system - just because there was no waiting and he had an office downtown. Later we recalculated, and found out this was a perfect saving: we'd have to fork out about $9000 for that much of dental work here.
>

Man those are some bad teeth. :)
I've had rather extensive dental work done in the past (I tended to lead with my teeth into swimming pools, dogs teeth, baseballs, etc...) All together it may have cost $9000.

>>>>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. ;)
>
>So what if an ATF cop is near when he's nearby when a crime happens which is not his job?
>

John Harvey may be able to offer some insight here, but my guess would be that if an ATF agent is in the area he is already working on another criminal. Now if he's off duty then I believe he would intervene.

>>>>>You do not have to participate in your employers HMO. You have a choice.
>
>Didn't know that then. Also, I figure if I didn't take what they were paying for, I'd have to pay all by myself elsewhere, wouldn't I?
>

Depends on the employer. Some will offer you a monthly monetary amount to seek health care outside the company. Most times this will be much less than the company's share if you go through their provider. This makes sense, since the employer has negociated their rate based on the number of employees who will enroll in the plan.

>>>>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.
>
>Sort of. The job was our ticket here, and while I was waiting for INS to get the visas processed, we were bombed by NATO, and my customers' customers were going out of business because of the bombing and the rest. So, I didn't have much choice - keep going down over there, or give it a try here, no third option.
>

Move to Canada? :)

>>>>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.
>
>I've heard that a determined thief had his ways repaved since Reagan, with far fewer traffic cops and roadblocks. Which is what, essentially, had previously made the Enron-Anderson relationship a big no-no.
>

We're jumping into legal area here that I daresay neither of us are experts. The bottom line is they broke the law and were busted. The laws in place worked. A quick yahoo search reveals 48 other public electric utility companies who didn't break the law. They, in addition to all other publicly traded companies, will now have to spend more time and money on lawyers and accountants to comply with new regulations because of a couple thieves who were caught by existing laws.

>In many areas I've found this idea that "introducing middlemen (middlepersons?) would make things cheaper" in the law. Just yesterday I heard that Virginian wine producers can't sell to restaurants. They must sell to wholesale. That's the law. Likewise, when we were buying this house, it seems there's no way to buy directly - both seller and buyer must have an agent.
>

In Oregon, at least when I was last up there, you're not allowed to pump your own gas. Only an attendant may work the pump.

>>>Happy 4th of July!
>
>My feet still hurt :). We walked five miles (2.5 each way) to get a good view of the fireworks. And we were back at about the same time as those with cars :).
>

I was in Laguna Beach, it was beautiful, but humid. We walked our feet off as well.

>>The rising numbers of millionaires are not alone. All economic levels benefit from the expanding economy.
>
>How do you know?

Looking at economic indicators and history. Real wages, income and net worth rose during the economic expansion of the 80s, 90s and currently.

>Are their spending habits tracked?

The service sector expanded in June for the 39th consecutive month.
http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2006/07/06/ap2861575.html
I think that's a pretty good indicator since things like retail and travel are included.

>Are they investing in production?
I'll site the manufacturing index for this, since it includes production along with other business factors. It was up again in June, although not as much as expected.
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060704/BUSINESS/107040126

The actual report is here.
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20060703005177&newsLang=en

>Or are you just reading what you like into this?

I only see what the numbers show. The economy is continuing to expand, although it has slowed over the last month. Most indications are that rising interest rates and slowing home sales are the main contribution the the slowdown. Of course new home sales were so hot for so long, the numbers are really just settling into a normal pattern.

High gas have had some impact as well but not nearly what was expectd. Fuel costs are driving prices up but the fed is keeping a lock on inflation by continuing to raise rates. So far the balance is being maintained and the economy is growing.

>If this is so good for everyone, then why is the median income dropping?

I haven't seen any numbers regarding median income past 2004 so I'm not certain that is still the case. I see that while median income dropped 2.3% between 2001-2004, median net worth rose 1.5% during the same period.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2006-02-23-fed-incomes_x.htm

The economy is on an upswing out of a recession, which has been hampered by the dot-com bust, 2 wars, $75 oil and hurricanes. Frankly, it's stunning that the economy is performing as well as it is. In all economic recoveries jobs and salaries lag behind. Since this recovery is hampered by global events they took longer than normal to recover. Jobs have been rising over the past 2 years and wages are increasing.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1146.cfm

>>As more people attain millionaire status they will begin to accelerate their earnings, thus contribute to the "gap". Again, I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing. The "gap" may be wider but the overall economy benefits from the investments of the wealthy.
>
>I don't see them investing here, it's not as profitable as investing in third world countries.

See indexes above.

>The number of new jobs here for the last five years is still far less than the natural increase of the workforce.

I think your facts are out of line. June saw less than expected job growth yet unemployment remained a neglible 4.6%. This is in spite of the events since 2001.

>>>>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.
>>
>>The civilian matters have nothing to do with the detention and interrogation of terrorists.
>
>Right, I said this is a separate matter, note the "also lists", and "nothing to do with". Bremmer's administration was doing all the stuff which is explicitly forbidden by Geneva convention, and doing pretty much none of what is explicitly stated as an obligation of the occupator.
>

How did we jump to Bremmer? We were discussing the differences between terrorists and POWs and now we're onto the occupational authority? OK, I'll bite, what did the authority not do that they should have?

>>>>Are you saying Brownie and his roommate were great?
>>
>>I think Brown is an idiot for his comments immediately following Katrina, however, he was the fall guy for a complete breakdown at all levels of government. The video footage of meetings before Katrina hit show that he was very concerned about, evacuees, the levees and the emergency response that was going to be needed at all levels.
>
>And there are his emails where he's deeply concerned about how will he look on TV in his attire.
>

While that made him look like a jerk, he really has no choice. He was a political appointee, under the spotlight of national news, he must worry about his appearance. That's just one of the requirements of a political job these days.

>>There is plenty of blame to share between the mayor's ineptitude, the governor's inability to make a simple request for federal aid
>
>Don't trust your sources on this one. I've seen her request, published in several places, while the whole mess was still underway. Why does the administration still play this card is beyond me. Briefly, she did send the request, and she did that on time. I figure that since she didn't explicitly agree for the federal authorities to take command of everything, it was ignored, and advertised as nonexistent.

Her initial request, in addition to those of Mississippi and Alabama, requested troops to assist the national guard, not take over.

Interview with General Honoré from Sept 1.
http://www.dod.gov/transcripts/2005/tr20050901-3843.html
"Q. General, you've described the National Guard role in security and law enforcement support. Is there any planning for active duty troops to join that mission, or would that not be possible given legal restrictions?

GEN. HONORÉ: Well, I think that's a question you know the answer to. (Laughs.) But to tell you, we are in support of the National Guard. They work the security mission as described by law in the Constitution under their governor, and we are currently providing support to them in enabling capabilities in air, capability in search and rescue, surface and air, as well as seaborne capability."

A couple other factors:
-The Red Cross was blocked from delivering supplies to the Superdome
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/08/katrina.redcross/index.html

-Mandatory evacuation was not ordered by Governor, despite the Mayor's request, until President Bush appealed for one.
http://www.letxa.com/katrina/nola-mandatory-evac-bush.html

-Corrupt leadership failing to appropriate funds for years if not decades
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9232666/site/newsweek/

Once again, I believe Katrina showed that government, at all levels, failed. It took years of negligence for the levee situation to get that dangerous. Combine that with the failure to force an evacuation, an insufficient request for aid, a slow federal response, spin, finger-pointing and media bombast, and we get what happened. Brown deserved to be fired. New Orleans had a chance to remove their inept mayor and chose to keep him so they deserve him. Blanco's day of reckoning comes in 2007. General Honoré should run for president when he retires. That's a man who know how to get s**t done.

>>>>>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 :).
>>
>>There's hope yet...
>
>Yes, I hope he gets a job before he stops believing in their mantras :).

Hopefully you'll pick up a copy so I can stop lloking up links to economic indicators for you. :)