Tag Archives: Politics

How to Get a Ton of People to Cross a Freeway

Incent them.

See, for a long time the whole housing crisis and economy things has been blamed on greed.  You know, greed of the bankers and the banks.  Greed of the mortgage lenders and the lending houses.  Greed on the folks thta bought and sold mortgage backed securities.  All of ’em.  all Street is just infested with greed.  [Note the absence of the greed of the home owner.  Cause’ you know, guys who earn 17k as a fry cook at the DQ aren’t being greedy when they try and buy a 400,000 dollar house.]

Never understood that.  I have always felt it’s supposed to be that way.  You know, like when I’m offered two similar jobs, I take the one that pays the most.  When trying to buy a car, I try to find the best price and then again, when given a chose between gas at $2.55 or gas at $2.85, I always pick the $2.55 price.  Always.  Never occurs to me who is more deserving.  IN fact, the only person I think of is me.  And how I benefit.  We’re all greedy.  And the whole thing depends on that.  It’s why we invent all the things that we invent.  Because we want to make money.  And because of that, we have innovations and quality of life increases and all kinds of progressive stuff.

Anyway, so, I have tried to explain it this way.  Suppose I have a hundred bucks that I wanna lend in order to make some money.  And two guys come to me wanting to borrow that money and then repay me $103.  Who am I going to lend it to?  Well, I am going to try to identify which one is better able and most likely to repay me.  Then I’m gonna lend the money to him.  Every time.  Every single time.  Always.  Not ever the other guy.  Ever.

Except.

Except if I can change the rules a little and shade gain along with risk.  That it, if I am able to enter into agreement on different terms, I may be willing to lend to the other guy.  What, you ask, would cause me to lend to the less qualified borrower?  Why, by increasing the return.  I may be willing to lend to the guy if he agrees to pay me back $115 dollars.  And so we negotiate and come to terms.  Note, however, that neither of us are going to agree to terms unless we think that it is in our best interest to do so.

Now, in this small example, can you think of a thing that would cause me to ignore the ability of the borrower to pay me back?  In other words, what would cause me to just loan that hundo out to EVERYBODY that knocked on my door?  Nothing.  I would never do that.  Ever.

Except.

Except if Ii could turn around and sell that loan to another company.  Now to compress the story…what would cause THAT company to buy these loans from lenders without knowledge of risk?  The same thing.  The ability to sell ’em.  And you know who was buyin?  Fannie and Freddie.  And you know why THEY were buyin’?  Cause they had NO downside.  If they as a company fail, the government would bail ’em out.  And they did and Uncle Sam did too.

So, I have always said that if you lined up 10,000 people on one side of I-540 and I was on the other, I could increase the number of people who tried to cross by increasing the financial incentive to do so.  And, in the end, whose fault would it be if someone was hit and killed?  Tricky huh?

But today, today I am vindicated.

What is Good for Me is Not Good for You

Stunning.  Truly stunning.

As the State is considering adding new taxes to the mix, they are at the same time telling local municipalities that they, in fact, can not tax those same businesses.

CHAPEL HILL — Local governments are watching anxiously as state lawmakers consider eliminating one of their revenue streams.

It’s called the privilege license tax, a fee that businesses pay for the privilege of operating within a local government’s jurisdiction.

Some lawmakers say the state needs to replace an unfair hodge-podge of fees that differ by locale and businesses without clear reason.

I wonder why?

Actually, I don’t.  See.  It’s much MUCH easier to be smart with someone else’s money than it is to be with your own.  Which is why governments, ALL of them, are not to be trusted with MY money.  This has nothing to do with conservative vs. liberal [although I do posit that conservatives are more for small government than libs are].  It has to do with the fact that the best people able to make decisions about their money are those people that EARNED it.  But hey, we all know that politicians are better able to spend our money than we are!

How to Get More of a Thing

I have posted a in the last week about getting less of a thing here and here.  I posit that when something becomes more expensive you get less of it.  As that same thing becomes less expensive, you get more of it.  For example, when you tax jobs, you get less jobs.  When you reduce the price of beer, you sell more beer.

Real life example is here.

MAIDE — Dirt could start moving as soon as August on a new $1 billion facility Apple is planning to build in Maiden, officials said Monday.

Catawba County commissioners and the Maiden Town Council approved incentives at a Monday evening meeting for the project, which is expected to create roughly 50 jobs 60 miles northwest of Charlotte.

The local incentives approved Monday are on top of changes to North Carolina law intended to attract the technology company. In June, Gov. Bev Perdue announced the expansion just hours after signing legislation that will cut the California-based computer company’s tax bill in this state by about $46 million over a decade. Apple must agree to invest $1 billion over nine years in land, property and equipment to qualify for the benefit.

See how easy this is?  When you reduce thhe cost of doing business, you do more business.  Funny that.  Truth and Facts!

Declaration of Independence

The Unanimous Declaration
of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. –Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Minimum Wage Going Up – If You’re Lucky

So, the next phase for the minimum wage hike is set for July 2009.  Right around the corner.  And this might seem like good news, heck, even in my own household I’m told this is a good idea.  To which I reply “The real minimum wage is $0.00.”  See, if you don’t have a job, you don’t get paid.  Which brings me to the point of it all I guess.  Or, rather, what should be the point.  See, government is really really bad at setting expectations, conducting data driven analysis, implementing a solution and then tracking that solution for results.  Heck, even private industry is generally bad at this, but really, government is horrible.  The reason?  It’s easier to manufacture spin than it is to demonstrate results.  Spin is easy.  Results are hard.  One gets you elected, the other gets the other guy elected.

So, let’s take minimum wage.  Let’s see if we can’t try to:

  1. Identify what we are trying to accomplish.
    1. Or, perhaps, more specifically WHO were are trying to help or assist.
  2. Identify some metrics that we can use to study data and later, measure results.
  3. Get some data, run some analysis.
  4. Since we have already implemented this policy, we’ll skip the whole “should we implement it” phase.
  5. Go back and see if the policy has worked.

Alright, so, let’s see if we can work to identify what we are trying to accomplish with a minimum wage law.  In my search, I found this, a study entitled “The Who and Why of the Minimum Wage” from The Economic Policy Institute.  The EPI is a liberal economic think tank; imagine Cato or Heritage for the Democrats. Right away we are given a hint of a possible metric:

Raising the wage floor is an essential part of a strategy to support working families.

Now, I’m going to clarify here.  All families, ALL of them, are working families.  While I don’t make the minimum wage, nor does my wife, I would take umbrage with anyone who tried to claim that ours is not a working family.  Yet, somehow, I understand from this study that mine is not the family we are trying to “support”.  The author is trying to support the poor or near poor, working family.  So, alright, we have a start.   We want to increase the income of the families, or people, who make the minimum wage.

To be clear, the authors do devote a significant portion of the study to those making more than the minimum wage, they do claim that the minimum wage is only a start.

Moving on to bullet #2 we need to see if we can identify a metric that we can use.  That would be something that would be able to give us an idea as to where we are now and then compare it to after we have implemented our change.  For me, one metric that jumps right out is the Annual Income of the target population.  So, we have as a metric “Annual income of people who made minimum wage before the increases of that minimum wage went into affect”.  If the law works, that metric should go up.  If it didn’t work, that metric would go down.

The third bullet point is what they always skip, and since they did, we can’t recreate it here.

So now we move on to number 5.  Let’s see if the policy worked.  Here we go!

First task, who earns the minimum wage?  Let’s check.

  • 2.2 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 3.0 percent of all hourly-paid workers.
  • Workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly-paid workers, they made up half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less.
  • About 7 in 10 workers earning the minimum wage or less in 2008 were employed in service occupations, mostly in food preparation and serving related jobs.
  • The industry with the highest proportion of workers with hourly wages at or below the Federal minimum wage was leisure and hospitality (about 14 percent). About three-fifths of all workers paid at or below the Federal minimum wage were employed in this industry, primarily in the food services and drinking places component. For many of these workers, tips and commissions supplement the hourly wages received.

Do you know what this means?  This means that A). Very very few people make the minimum wage. B). Those that do are young.  And C). A large portion of minimum wage or less earners are bringing in tips.

As an aside, I used to tend bar, at one point I did it for a living.  When I did, I would calculate an annual “salary” based on wage and tips adjusting for taxes [that I didn’t pay on tips].  Every year I brought in more than 40K.  Often I was making better than 44k.  And this did not include the added benefit of eating most meals at the restaurant as well as a significant discount on my “liquid” needs.  While I didn’t have health insurance provided, I was young and in good health; though I did smoke and did work in a smoky environment.

Needless to say, in 2008, the vast vast majority of workers in America did not make the minimum wage.  While the numbers above reflect the 2008 year, as recently as 2005, 67% of teens and young adult making the minimum wage:

  • Worked part time jobs – Again, I worked a part time job in school, high school and college.  In each case, I was paid the minimum wage at the time.
  • Had average family incomes of 64k.

Folks, I get the fact that we wanna help people who are struggling, but the facts is the facts; almost everyone makes more than the minimum wage.

A Tale of Two Nations

So, we have two nations involved in power conflicts; Honduras and Iran.  In Iran, we have a nation that is a center player on the world stage.  They are center in Mid East peace, they continue to provide oil and their regime continues to insist both on having nucs and destroying Israel.  In Honduras we have, well, not much.  Interesting take that our President has in handling each crisis.

In Iran, I think that Obama is right to be very careful and avoid giving too much ammunition to the current ruling party.  Anything that we would be able to do or say* would be used by the sitting President as meddling by the US and would simply stir up anti-American sentiments in that nation.  The President is right to allow the people of Iran to work this out for themselves.

The other nation, Honduras, is another matter all together.  Here, Mr. Obama IS inserting himself and calling for the ousted leader to be reinstated.  While it’s true that a sitting President was “arrested” and taken out of country, the facts on the ground are not very clear that the sitting President was a lawful one.  IN any event, Mr. Obama is clearly NOT affording the people of Honduras the same opportunity as he is the people of Iran.

Which brings up the question of why.  My thoughts: the sitting President is an ally of Hugo Chavez, an ideological brother of President Obama.

* Let’s not forget that Obama’s Administration IS talking.  In fact, they are talking about taking credit for the protests.

…privately Obama advisers are crediting his Cairo speech for inspiring the protesters, especially the young ones, who are now posing the most direct challenge to the republic’s Islamic authority in its 30-year history.

In both cases, claiming to energize the protesters and then just letting them hang AND defending Socialist regimes–Obama is showing what we knew when all ya’ll not me elected him.  He is a rookie at this whole thing.

Fruits of Our Labor

Six weeks ago Dave Ribar wrote about the affects of the new consumer protection measures.  Congress pass and Obama signed a new law that would restrict banks ability to raise rates and fees.  It seems that certain elected officials are shocked, just SHOCKED at the news that banks are responding by raising rates now:

Yesterday, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) once again requested that the Federal Reserve invoke its emergency powers to place a limit on interest rate hikes.

“This is what many of us feared about a law that didn’t take effect right away,” Schumer said. “It was never going to take this long for the credit card companies to get ready for the new reforms. Instead, issuers are using the delay in the effective date to wring more dollars out of their customers. It is against the spirit of the law, and it is just plain wrong.”

And:

Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) said the recent rate and fee hikes were “unfair and deceptive and must be stopped.”

“Capricious actions like these are why Congress overwhelmingly passed, and President Obama signed, my credit card reform bill: to level the playing field on behalf of consumers,” she said.

However, I am not so sure why this should catch these folks, or any of us paying attention, flat footed.  It’s not as if the companies didn’t warn us:

Bank executives had warned that the new law would force them to increase rates and fees because it would keep them from properly managing borrowers’ risk.

The reason for this?

The argument is that if banks can’t raise rates on riskier customers, they will have to raise rates on all.

Silly I know.  When banks lend money they wanna be able to asses risk and base rates accordingly.  When this ability is taken away from them, how would you expect them to react?

Look, it seems reasonable that different portfolios of risk would return different rates of profitability.  Sure, there IS profit for the banks by extending credit to borrowers who payoff their balance every month.  Equally likely is the fact that these borrowers will likely never default and declare bankruptcy; low risk, low gain.  On the other hand, by extending credit to high risk borrowers increases the chance that the banks simply lose their money.  In fact, we have been seeing this:

Banks have been hit with a record number of charge-offs, or debts they give up on because the borrowers have no way of paying them back. In June, credit card losses hit a record 10.44 percent, according to Fitch Ratings.

Once again, it seems that Liberal policies meant to protect the people have only hurt the people.  But this isn’t new.  An interesting fact is that it’s currently possible for individual Liberals to lend THEIR OWN MONEY to risky borrowers.  I wonder how many do?  And if they do, would they still scream for regulations on rate and limits and such.

Finally, I love the personal story that ends the Washington Post article.  You know, the token story of one single person getting taken advantage of by these evil evil companies.

Charles Chichester Jr., a 65-year-old retired U.S. Postal Service employee who lives in Fairfax County, was trying to pay off his credit card soon but now fears he will be unable to do so at all. He received a letter from Chase, he said, notifying him that his $373 minimum monthly payment would increase to more than $900. When he called to say he could not afford that, a Chase representative told him to consult with a credit counselor, he said. That’s exactly what he plans to do.

“The 900-something-dollar minimum monthly payment is just something I cannot do,” he said.

Of course, NOT on the list of things that Charles cannot do?

  1. Rack up more than $18,000 worth of debt on a single credit card while pulling a retired U.S. Postal Service employee’s income.

The Economist Weighs In

Look, I’m just a guy with a college degree.  I’m not an economist but I am handy with numbers.  And, mostly, I am capable of free thinking.  Which is why I find this article from The Economist laughable.

We start off well, in fact I had high hopes after just the first sentence.

DIAGNOSING what is wrong with America’s health-care system is the easy part.

I happen to agree with the author’s take.  I DO think that it’s easy to diagnose what’s wrong with America’s health-care system.  Which is why I was disappointed when The Economist got it wrong.  Not even 30 seconds later we are stunned to learn that nearly 50 million Americans don’t have coverage.  This is gross and simply unacceptable for a major news source to make a statement this absurd.  50 million.  Americans.  Uninsured.  Really?  Let’s take a look.

  • The real number being used is 47 million
  • Of those 47 million it’s been reported that 9 million are enrolled in Medicaid and failed to report it
  • 8 million are kids.  These kids are now covered by SCHIP

We’re down to 30 million now.  Fully 40% off the 50 million number quoted by the Economist.  But there’s more–way more.

  • 1.7 million are parents making more than 300% of FPL [federal poverty level]
  • 5.9 million are non-parent adults making more than 300% of FPL
  • 3.1 million are adult parents eligible for assistance today
  • 2 million are non-parent adults who are eligible for assistance today

Now we’re at 17.3 million.  17.3 million people who are not covered.  Now for the best part.  Wait for it—wait…waaiit……9 million aren’t even US citizens.  How AWESOME is that?!?

So, after getting the number down to 17.3 million, we’re able to shave off another cool 9 mill  bringing us to the grand total of 6.3 million.  And we get 50 million from The Economist.  Gross.

Next the author compares the benefits of American health services with OECD and their averages.  As far as I can tell, the comparison used three metrics:

  1. Infant mortality rate
  2. Life Expectancy
  3. Survival Rates for Heart Attacks

Again, the depth, or lack thereof, in reporting is surprising.  It has been documented that the infant mortality rate in the US is much higher than other countries because of the methods used in reporting.  According to WHO the definition of birth is:

Live birth refers to the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of the pregnancy, which, after such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life – e.g. beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles – whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached. Each product of such a birth is considered live born.

However, in many cases, countries fail to report all births due to their own definitions; for example:

  • In Switzerland and other parts of Europe, a baby born who is less than 30 centimeters long is not counted as a live birth. Therefore, unlike in the U.S., such high-risk infants cannot affect Swiss infant mortality rates.
  • In Belgium and France — in fact, in most European Union countries — any baby born before 26 weeks gestation is not considered alive and therefore does not “count” against reported infant mortality rates.
  • Some of the countries reporting infant mortality rates lower than the U.S. classify babies as “stillborn” if they survive less than 24 hours whether or not such babies breathe, move, or have a beating heart at birth.
  • In Canada, Germany, and Austria, a premature baby weighing <500g is not considered a living child.

When these and other reporting anomalies are factored in, Norway, which has the lowest infant mortality rate in the world, ranks no better than the United States.  Further, since 2000, 42 of the world’s 52 surviving babies weighing less than 400g (0.9 lbs.) were born in the United States.  Hardly an indicator that the United States if failing in the area of infant health.

The CIA has the United States ranked 50th in life expectancy.  And, as noted above, the article uses this metric in it’s assessment of the United State’s system.  However, it has been reported that Life Expectancy is not a valid measure of a country’s health care system:

…robust statistical analysis confirms that health care spending is not related to life expectancy.  Studies of multiple countries using regression analysis found no significant relationship between life expectancy and the number of physicians and hospital beds per 100,000 population or health care expenditures as a percentage of GDP.  Rather, life expectancy was associated with factors such as sanitation, clean water, income, and literacy rate.8 A recent study examined cross-national data from 1980 to 1998.  Although the regression model used initially found an association between health care expenditure and life expectancy, that association was no longer significant when gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was added to the model. Indeed, GDP per capita is one of the more consistent predictors of life expectancy.

Yet the United States has the highest GDP per capita in the world, so why does it have a life expectancy lower than most of the industrialized world?  The primary reason is that the U.S. is ethnically a far more diverse nation than most other industrialized nations.  Factors associated with different ethnic backgrounds – culture, diet, etc. – can have a substantial impact on life expectancy.  Comparisons of distinct ethnic populations in the U.S. with their country of origin find similar rates of life expectancy.  For example, Japanese-Americans have an average life expectancy similar to that of Japanese.

And this is just the first paragraph.  Keeping up with the Liberal press is simply exhausting.


Not the End, but The Beginning of Worse

I was reading the News and Observer this morning and saw that Smithfield Packing finally succumbed to the kudzu that is Unions.

Smithfield Packing, union agree on NC contract

TAR HEEL, N.C. — Smithfield Packing Co. and a union that worked for years to organize a huge North Carolina slaughterhouse say they have agreed on their first contract for the plant.

I have not yet taken the time to check and see if Smithfield Packing is a publicly traded company or not, but I am sure that the value of this company just took a 10% hit.  Not only that, but employment in the company went down today as well.

I repeat, there is nothing, not ONE thing that is good about unionization within a company.  Unless, of course, you are a Union official.

Unions effectively tax …  [company] investments by negotiating higher wages for their members, thus lowering profits. Unionized companies respond to this union tax by reducing investment. Less investment makes unionized companies less competitive.

And a less competetive company is a company that is not as valuable as a more competitive compant.  If you need further proof that Unionization is a bad thing, take a look at the States with the highest unemployment rates and see how many of them are Union states and how many are right to work.

Heck, I’ll save ya the time:

1 Nebraska Right to Work
2 North Dakota Right to Work
3 South Dakota Right to Work
4 Wyoming Right to Work
5 Utah Right to Work
6 Iowa Right to Work
7 Montana Forced Union
8 Oklahoma Right to Work
9 New Hampshire Forced Union
10 New Mexico Forced Union
41 Kentucky Forced Union
42 DC Forced Union
43 Tennessee Right to Work
44 Ohio Forced Union
45 North Carolina Right to Work
46 Nevada Right to Work
47 California Forced Union
48 South Carolina Right to Work
49 Oregon Forced Union
50 Michigan Forced Union

Interesting list, huh?

Universal Health Care: French Edition

So, the President travelled to the Mid-East and then Europe earlier this month.  While in France, the President delivered his Weekly Radio Address.  In this address, he spoke directly about our health care situation and how we need to change it.  I think that we should take the opportunity to explore the French version of this vision.

With just a little bit of Googling I found numerous articles from sources such as:

Reuters

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

Business Week

After just an easy overview of these articles, it is apparent that the French are kicking our asses in the whole health care thing.  In the Business Week article, France has itself coming in 1st with the US rounding out at 37th.  In Reuters, Uncle Sam is running 19th in a 19 man race while France, again, places 1st.  All in all, no matter how you look at it, America is lagging.  Perhaps Mr. Oabama had it right to initiate his Health care kickoff in the country that has it going on.

But, before we acknowledge that we have indeed failed, let’s take a look at what it is that has France ranked so high in all of our studies.  For example, in the Reuters study, it was a ranking of 19 nations in preventable deaths due to treatable conditions.  And in the Business Week article, it quotes the ranking done by WHO, The World Health Organization, that has France coming 1st and the United States a dismal 37th.  In that ranking, the WHO lists infant mortality rates, life span, available beds and doctors per citizen as well as deaths from respiratory disease.  And all of this, of course, as the United States pays more for it’s health care than any other nation.

On the face of things, it would seem that indeed, the United States is in dire need of reform and, in fact, may finally have to implement some form of national health care.  After all, America remains the only industrialized nation not to have such a system.

In the following days, I will look deeper into the claims made by various agencies.  Look deeper into the numbers and identify if yes, the United States is in as bad as shape as it would appear.