I am...confused. I think as a smug Scandinavian I should be ticked off...but I'm not sure what your point is exactly. But I'll hazard a guess; that public health services are bad or something? Or just in the US of A?

That the -- government administered -- are a bad idea, but especially in the USA.

That they -- government administered -- are a bad idea, but especially in the USA. More the latter here. I dont think it's that confusing -- if this is the way it runs for our politically favorite patients, imagine how bad for classes we regard with contempt.

Kind of like the way the British reacted to the irish potato famine -- government programs that exacerbated disease and poverty and dispossession, and for the most part were well-intentioned, nationalist and socialist gripes to the contrary.

oops.....nationalist and socialist gripes to the contrary, notwithstanding.

Having experienced more than I care to of being an inpatient at one of the finest teaching hospitals in this very large and medically well-served U.S. metro area, even being covered by decent private insurance at the time, I hate to tell you that it's not exactly a bed of roses in the private sector either. I don't think I ever would have been bathed in the hospital if my family hadn't been around either to do it themselves or to run interference, getting pain meds was an ordeal, even after several hours of nasty ortho surgery, and the doc missed a blood clot that could easily have killed me (and which was eventually detected by the quite Canadian physical therapist on an H-1B who saw me as an outpatient). Hospital discharge counseling consisted of "OK, so you live alone, and you won't have the use of one leg for at least the next several months. So does your place have stairs? No? Well, here are some crutches that you're far too weak to use - the physical therapist will call you to evaluate you for a walker and/or wheelchair, which, by the way, won't help you function in your own home for quite some time." The rest (including quite a lot of medical research on treatment options) was figured out on my own and/or with the assistance of family, friends, co-workers, and grocery delivery.

So I wouldn't be so quick to blame all the ills of the care of vets on the evils of socialized medicine. On the other hand, I did have a fabulous experience with the UK NHS, even though I wasn't eligible for coverage - they gave me better advice than some board-certified U.S. orthopedic specialists I've seen. It's a mixed bag everywhere. (But let's not talk about Soviet dental care, OK?)

Actually continental French or Spanish public medical services are very good. Canada's definitely are crappy, so no, the Maple Leaf isn't doing that great in that field.

Medicine, Education (besides obviously justice/police/army) are the only fields where I might be less of a libertarian fundy. I mean, I am not for a socialized system a la Europe, which despite its quality, probably costs a lot more in taxes than if it was taken care of by the private sector, but I'm not sure how to deal with the indigent without letting them die either (even though seeing physically healthy unemployed people living on my taxes makes the idea really appealing).

Interestingly, I like the way it is in some Arab countries. You get crappy public services, so if you're poor and are satisfied with being poor, you also have to live with the disadvantages of that condition. But if you really, I mean really, don't like being poor, work your ass off and make some money, and then you can have access to a world class private sector medicine. So good actually in Tunisia or Morocco for example that there's a nascent offshore outsourcing industry in that field for whatever isn't covered by social security in Europe (people buy a hotel/plane/medical treatment package in Europe, the quality is as good and it's cheaper).

I am not for a socialized system a la Europe, which despite its quality, probably costs a lot more in taxes than if it was taken care of by the private sector

But isn't Walter Reed a typical US outsourcing scandal? And doesn't that pull the carpet from underneath this market fundie thread?

Though it does echo an argument put to me by a flaming (right) wingnut on welfare in USA, that it would never work because people there are too selfish and would exploit it no end.

There was a study about six years ago done by the World Bank, IIRC, that studied per capita expenditure on healthcare vis-a-vis outcomes in all the industrialised countries. The US had the highest expenditure and the worst health results. France's system, for all Americans love to make fun of it, actually turned out to be more economically efficient. Should give some pause to the market fundies, though I doubt it will ever stop the repetition of received smug ideological American nationalist wisdom.

So, Shaheen, you're saying that all those poor people in the Arab world just ... don't WANT to work their asses off?

Ya'nii ... they thought long & hard about it and then decided "Nah, I don't really want to stop being poor ... it's too much hassle & work getting out of poverty."???

I don't know about the Maghreb, but in the Mashriq you really have to be solid middle or even upper middle class to afford "world class private sector medicine".

But hey, if libertarian fundamentalism works for you, I don't want to force you to shed your believes ...

--MSK

hrm, yeah, I think this is a silly post, no offense to Matt's other eminent writings. But medicare is one of the places that IMO should be publicly financed, since people don't choose whether to come down with something life-threatening and very expensive to treat, it's not something that happens because people don't work hard enough.

But the point about USA and public services is interesting: that Americans assume anything not privatized or in private hands will be the pits, and so would never endeavour to make it anything else.

Klaus: thus, Americans' notorious unwillingness to make use of the Interstate highway system.

eh. That one went over my head. Are you making fun of me, or are you 4 real?

More making fun of matthew, really. Americans have no problem making full use of the taxpayer-funded, centrally-bureaucratically-organized etc etc highway system, and I have little doubt that if a semi-sensible single-payer (or whatever) system came into being, they would have no problem using that, while still claiming to hate, fear and distrust inefficient government bureacracy.

MSK,

Ya'nii ... they thought long & hard about it and then decided "Nah, I don't really want to stop being poor ... it's too much hassle & work getting out of poverty."???

I wouldn't put it in such simplistic terms but. For most, the choices and efforts that must be made to get out of their condition are not considered an option - when in fact, it's a matter of just not wanting to make them (for whatever reason, not necessarily laziness, it can be some uptight moral lack of pragmatism). I have seen enough people get out of poverty and make it to the middle class when they really wanted to, to not buy the argument of the victims of circumstances. Sure, life is unfair, some people have it much easier than others, etc. But to tell me that you're condemned by your birth environment is crap. I'm sure you'll have seen yourself many of it MSK. There are universities all around the Arab world, and if it's too expensive in some place (like Lebanon, some people can't afford it) you can still go to the next country (and I've seen Lebanese do it). There is no excuse for not getting an education. Then there are those who missed that opportunity, but decided to work hard anyway. Wake up at 4 am, work hard til night, save, borrow, open a small trade. Or leave, go to Europe/North America. Yes, if you really screwed your education, and your professional experience, you have little chance to get that visa. But guess what, there are still those who chose to leave as illegal immigrants, or marry an old desperate lady in exchange for the visa, so they can work and make it. Some might despise that, but I suggest they exchange places then - at least those are doing something about themselves, and that deserves respect. I don't want to measure losers' failures by how other failed as well. It raises the question, for everyone of them, of why people in harsher conditions made it.

I don't know about the Maghreb, but in the Mashriq you really have to be solid middle or even upper middle class to afford "world class private sector medicine".

The same goes for the Maghreb, MSK. But then, I don't believe in fate, being part of the upper middle class is a matter of choice.

being part of the upper middle class is a matter of choice

ok, mission accomplished, that ticks me off. Being handicapped or seriously ill is not a matter of choice. That's chance, not fate. Condemned by birth environment, what about Down's Syndrome, etc.?

test

(typekey acting up)

being part of the upper middle class is a matter of choice

ok, mission accomplished, that ticks me off. Being handicapped or seriously ill is not a matter of choice. That's chance, not fate. We still are talking about medicare, not social mobility.

I, for one, would gladly accept a major overhaul of the U.S. medical payments system if it meant that I wouldn’t have had to pay two months’ salary for the first 48 hours of treatment for a broken leg, treatment which was far from high-tech and didn’t involve anything that wouldn’t have been done the same way several decades ago (ambulance, X-rays, opiate injection for pain, two nurses holding me down and a doctor yanking to realign the bone fragments, plaster cast), all because I was 2 days short of having health coverage take effect a new job. For that matter, if my home state hadn’t had a law requiring group insurance plans to cover preexisting conditions, I’d probably have been $100k in the hole for surgery, physical therapy, etc. and would have had to declare bankruptcy, nevermind that I was a graduate-degreed professional who’d never been without either a full-time job or a full-time degree program (or both) in my entire life.

Something has got to give, is what I say. The current system is just insane. Can the U.S. really not figure out a way for contributing members of society to treat even basic medical issues without risking bankruptcy?

Klaus,

Being handicapped or seriously ill is not a matter of choice.

I agree. But how many among the working class are handicapped or seriously ill? We're talking in general here, not about a small minority of exceptions.

We still are talking about medicare, not social mobility.

And both are related. While, as I said, I am not in favor of letting the indigent die, I am not in favor of paying an insane chunk of my revenue to provide them with world class services either. If they want high quality service, let them earn it.

well, then this turns into a left-right debate, just like the ones people used to have before the new millenium arrived. Ok. To me there are two arguments that can be made against a welfare state, including a national health service:

1. It's my money, hands off.
2. It doesn't work.

First is emotional, fair enough, if that's how you feel and argue. No sociological pro-con, but whatev. I can't really argue against an emotion, except to say that I believe that if one less rich means one less poor, then fine by me. Doesn't always, that's my caveat. But neither does privatization.

Second is untrue, but might be valid for USA and other places. All I can say is I'm very happy with the way things work here in Scandinavia. One might say that Scandinavian welfare states are icky sticky big mother societies, which I feel too sometimes, but one simply cannot say they don't work. It's a typical right-wing argument here in Denmark that the welfare state is going to fail, since it obviously isn't doing so right now.

Klaus, right re left/right. But to answer your point about it being emotional, the left's argument is actually. That portion of money that is taxed to create inefficient welfare systems would otherwise be invested to create value, for the benefit of all incidentally. Even if they have worked so far, like in France/Spain (I don't know Scandinavia), they're inefficient, other ways would work better (just compare economic growth, unemployment, etc.). The effect might no be immediately visible, but in the long run, it's begging for trouble, do the math. By taking that money away, you're creating a disincentive to create more wealth, both for those who do, and for those who would have to. Economics 101. Yes, there are nuances, exceptions, we're not talking about going back to the 19th century, etc., etc., but the general picture is there.

Now I'm having the impression of discussing worn, trivial ideas with kids.

Here's an interesting bit: Peter Lindert, an economic historian, had written a book a few years ago that points out the size and quality of the welfare state correlated with how regressive the effective tax rates are. Very few people got the point--even one of the blurbs on the jacket mischaracterizes the main point. The point is that Anglo-Saxons, especially the U.S., have surprisingly progressive effective taxation because of the heavy reliance on income tax with comparatively few loopholes. Continental Europe, despite having seemingly progressive income tax structure, reliance on indirect taxes combined with numerous loopholes, actually have more regressive effective tax rates than the Anglo-Saxons. In another words, the poor are actually paying for the welfare state in Europe--not government playing Robin Hood. One might wonder if socialized hospital care in Europe is better because its users actually pay for the stuff--i.e. it's not a gov't redistributive scheme.

Shaheen – but to me, one of the major issues in the U.S. is that millions of people who are employed and/or otherwise contributing members of society, and millions of kids who have no choice in the matter, have no insurance coverage, and in many cases it’s simply because they cannot afford it. And in millions of other cases, people with preexisting conditions can’t get coverage for them, or can’t get coverage at all, and can’t afford to pay out of pocket for even basic treatment, let alone something complicated and expensive like a first-world organ transplant or hemodialysis.

Basic medical care is something that contributing members of a wealthy society (or even people who would be contributing members if they were able) shouldn’t have to worry about. There must be a better way. I don't know exactly what that way is, but it's got to exist.

Now I'm having the impression of discussing worn, trivial ideas with kids.

pff, that was uncalled for. Now I get the impression I'm dealing with a rigid market fundie ideologue oblivious to facts.

But maybe that can be explained by, possibly, a Romanic/Germanic difference to state governance. I have always thought France to be amazingly bureaucratic, but next time please include Holland, Germany and Scandinavia in your thoughts on economy and the regulation/taxation thereof. Taxation is not just taxation, there are many ways to do it, some good, some dumb. They do not, by necessity, clog up the free flow of capital. But everything I know about France (and Italy) points in that direction.

I'll be happy the day some respected economist treats Scandinavian welfare states as something other than an economic bumblebee.

shaheen - But how many among the working class are handicapped or seriously ill? We're talking in general here, not about a small minority of exceptions.

Yeah, the handicapped exceptions are a small minority, but they'll need that healthcare on an individual basis no matter how many or how few. The point of socialized medicine is precisely to give people belonging to small/powerless groups what they can't get without it.

And you forget that handicapped (and other bad luck cases) also have family, friends, spouses, children and others who will have to pay for their living costs and treatment since they can't do it themselves -- because someone has to. They sure didn't chose that, and put together, they're a lot of people. And then there's all those kids who dropped out of school not because they didn't want to study, but because they were needed in the family business, or, like in the case of a lot of girls, weren't allowed to study by their families -- they'll be badly disadvantaged on a competitive labour market at age 40, but what could they have done differently?

Getting rich is hard even in well-functioning, stable democratic free markets like the US, and to just stop being poor isn't necessarily easier. And then, in the clusterfuck economies of the present-day Arab world, it's just so much harder. Sure you can argue for some shock-therapy thing for the MENA region, just to get it to grow a normal economy and save people in the long run. It's true to some extent: the immediate future will suck regardless, so let's make it suck in a constructive way. But to say that you like that rich people only can get expensive surgery, since it will encourage people to work harder ... well that seems Social Darwinist to the extreme.

Just to set the record straight, many Arab countries are doing better than the US (or Canada despite its crapload of taxes) according to the WHO:
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Now, in most Arab countries I'm aware of, if you use public facilities, you *will* receive treatment for whatever you have, you don't need an expensive surgeon, the state will take care of it for you. That said, in some, patients don't get a 5 star treatment, they might have to wait, be treated by medicine students who think of them more as lab rats than as patients, underpaid nurses who don't give a damn about customer service, barely edible food, depressing hospitals which look like nazi camps, etc., but they *do* get treatment for free anyway. Their skin is saved, so what's the problem? They get more than what they pay for, so they should say thanks and move on. If they want to be treated at the Ritz by George Clooney, let them pay for it.

Getting rich is hard even in well-functioning, stable democratic free markets like the US, and to just stop being poor isn't necessarily easier.

Hard, but not impossible. Touch luck, life is unfair, but some make it. Question the whiners should ask: why others and not them. Someone should teach kids that the priviledges of wealth don't come on a white horse while they're sleeping.

Well, a few obs.

First, on medical care, I have a soft-spot, having had experience with UK, French, Canadian and US systems for the French. And I don't even particularly care for the French.

So, Hogan, no in this case you'r full of bloated rotted bollocks.

Although I do suspect that the implementation of a US system would be stunningly bad, one need not imagine an ideal system to do better than the US on a cold bost benefit relationship.

As for the side discussion btw Shaheen and MSK, well I unsurprisingly am symapthetic to Shaheen but with serious reservations. This, actually, would be brilliant Aqoul convo. An open bulletin board type convo.

Ah fuck, why do I always arrive at the interesting debates late. Healthcare policy is one of my mini-obsessions.

I'd note few things: First, meaningful comparison between countries (e.g. cost effectiveness) is almost impossible save for broad trends. Second, socialized medicine does not preclude a private component. Americans love to point at Canada when discussing the "threat" of socialized medicine, without realizing that it's a weird case - probably the only OECD country with end-to-end public delivery (without priv sector participation, e.g. insurance). Third, there is a correlation between perceived trustworthiness of government and tax rate. High accountability = greater trust in govt to handle money = more willingness to have things like soc medicine. Scandi countries are the furthest on this continuum, followed by W. Europe, Canada, Australia, etc. Americans, predictably, have very low trust in govt.

In most Canadian provinces, healthcare consumes ~30% of the budget, which means it is under intense and constant scrutiny by the public.

In the case of the US, simply combining the current patchwork of government-run healthcare programs into a single system would probably save billions, reduce admin overhead significantly and improve quality of care. Of course, the usual response to healthcare reform in the US is knee-jerk hysterics about Canada. Pointless and counterproductive, like comparing apples to hippos.

As L is so fond of saying, let not perfect be the enemy of good.

High accountability = greater trust in govt to handle money = more willingness to have things like soc medicine

That's one of the things I don't really get about USA, how its distrust for the state does not result in more accountability. That math equation runs the other way too: Less trust = less accountability.

There were a few cases of skeletons in the closet with the new Swedish right-wing government ministers that were just plain silly IMO. One minister had had a babysitter who might or might not have had more than 10,000 Skr (1,500 US$ approx) in pay for a whole year without tax reporting, which would be illegal. It was really...they really spent a long time on it, did he resign btw? alle? I stopped following it. I swear, every week a new thing emerges from the Bush admin that would topple a Swedish government in an instant.

Same thing in Canada, Klaus. Minor misappropriations/small fuckups get massive amounts of attention and end up bringing down entire governments.

Of course, taking a position of superiority wrt the USG is difficult in light of its geopolitical standing, economic strength, ethos, history, etc.

Not that I don't occasionally smack my head in frustration when I think about Americans having to worry about things like job security and bankruptcy while they are seriously ill.

KH- the US *income* tax rate may have few loopholes, but AFAIK tax on capital gains and so on is much lower than in the rest of the industrialised world, and as the wealthy are going to have more of their money in stocks and assets, they benefit from it more. I remember a few years ago reading an article about the effective tax rate on a guy like Cheney was lower than on a middle class person (disclaimer: I have only the vaguest recollection of this). When I made a piddling $30,000 a year in my first job I still ended up paying around 28% tax incl social security. At least the Europeans get something for their taxes.

Here's the link for the WHO report of 2000 which made a splash by arguing that the American system was less efficient than European ones: http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/. It may be difficult to compare rigorously the effectiveness of different healthcare systems, and that's the subject of much nerdy debate among researchers of course, but it's important to consider the evidence rather than let received wisdom about the perfection and efficiency of the American healthcare system go unchallenged, or counter it with more ideological arguments about left vs right.

What I find troubling is that poll after poll in the US shows that a majority of Americans would be quite happy to try out a single-payer system, yet no politician will touch the idea because it's "socialist." They seem perfectly happy to let people die and go into bankruptcy for the sake of ideology.

klaus - did he resign btw? alle? I stopped following it.

Uh, I kind of did too. Two female ministers resigned for similar things (one of them really more for being rich and happy in general, we like neither), but another one (immigration minister Tobias Billström, perhaps who you're referring to?) stayed on. Unfortunately. He sucks.

Anyway, now they're taking aim on the foreign minister, former conservative premier Carl Bildt (1991-94). He apparently spent his entire post-politics career on the boards of various shady oil companies and funds ... so he's now tarred with, rightly or not (mostly not): Darfur genocide, Serbian army, Turkish generals, Russian military, the Iraq war, Big Oil, and probably something else too. Plus he's unashamedly rich, upperclass smug, of noble family, superbly bright and correspondingly arrogant, and insists on using his personal blogs instead of summoning press conferences.

It's really a lot more than we're used to. Love the guy.

k - I swear, every week a new thing emerges from the Bush admin that would topple a Swedish government in an instant.

Given their history of toppling governments, I don't think you should blame Swedish fiscal prudency for that.

I'm sure Lounsbury could entertain us on end about tax evasion and legal loopholes, I mean what are corrupt expats for anyway. But, seriously, tax evasion should be way higher up on the agenda of European governments than higher/lower tax reform bollocks. There is an immense amount of tax rate shopping going on in the Common Market, it's just ridiculous. For fuck's sake, Monaco gets its income from its casino.

I'm all for capitalism for sustainable wealth, who isn't these days, but countries like Monaco are simply parasites.

countries like Monaco are simply parasites.

Some politician should get off the beaten tracks and realize that taxes are a form of legalized extorsion. There's no reason governments don't earn their money the way any other economic agent does. Of course it's not something that can be changed in one night, but all the economic tools exist so that it can be put in place. So no, Monaco is not a parasite, it's actually more enlightened than its environment.

It is a parasite because it does not make its own rich people, it simply takes those from surrounding countries by providing a tax haven. It's not the casino that attracts the rich, it's the no income tax. How enlightened.

oh lordie, read your wiki link, alle. I'm not sure if this was put in to make fun of the whole thing:

Sahlin had, among other things, paid for some candy (Toblerone) with a government credit card, although she paid the money back right away and it was never seen as a criminal act.

That was the Toblerone affair, and what apparently passes for a scandal in Sweden. Seriously, you guys need to loosen up, stop repressing the id. Freud would say.

Some politician should get off the beaten tracks and realize that taxes are a form of legalized extorsion.

That's the point of governments, no?

There's no reason governments don't earn their money the way any other economic agent does.

Yes there is, because then they wouldn't be governments. They would be "any other economic agent".

If you want privatized government (as opposed to simply lower taxes), I recommend you try out Somalia -- you can't very well complain about people's lack of realism if you're then going to argue for anarchism.

klaus - I actually like it the way it is. As chairman Mao said, politicians must work hard and serve the people.

But, like you said, I guess that's a Romanic/Germanic thing -- it's well known that you Danes are the Greeks of Scandinavia, with your corrupt and bigoted government, mañana ways, booze and fatty food. Southern Europe begins at Öresund, as far as I'm concerned.

(Plus, Sahlin just returned to head the Social Democrats, so no damage done. And actually, the longer she was held off, the better.)

Alle,

re Somalia, anarchy... Don't be hysterical and put such inanities in my mouth. There's nothing about investing that makes it an inherent characteristic of private sector. There are a few governments which do not get their revenues from taxes. It's not common, but they do exist. Not just paradise islands or rocks, Alberta's government is taking that direction.

Woo. The libertarian case for state-owned industry. I swoon.

Tom,

okay, okay, laugh all you want, but very non socialist governments are investing to generate revenue. No monopolies, nothing like a planned economy, nothing in the way of the private sector or the like. A fund, normal free market rules. It generates revenues, reduces reliance on taxes, boosts economy, etc. It can only be positive, what non ideological arguments can you have against it?

shaheen - Somalia: okay.

There's nothing about investing that makes it an inherent characteristic of private sector.

Of course not. And there's nothing about jailing people that makes it an inherent characteristic of public authorities either, it just happens to be better that way.

Put simply: governments that seriously invest in something (not to mention pin their existence on state businesses) will eventually start banning their competitors. That's, again, what makes them governments. If you want self-financing governments (because taxing income is evil etc), then I suggest starting a lottery, charging fees for something, or why not a nice flat tax on land? Georgism never goes out of fashion.

This is an honest question to Shaheen: did you make it to the upper class on your own, and if so, how?

What alle said. Also, there are a lot of things that relatively small governments, and yes Alberta is relatively small and also not really sovereign, can do that larger governments simply can't. Alberta could sink its revenues into a free-market account (and ohbyetheway where do these governments get the cash to invest in profitable whatevers, if they don't happen to have massive mineral-resource rents?) without causing noticeable disturbances in the market, or being faced with the temptation of using its market power for political ends. The United States? Not so much.

Mao said a lot of things. What are mañana ways?

klaus - Christiania, and that whole attitude that things will work out fine even if you're not being completely anal about detail and political correctness. (Most annoyingly, they inevitably do.)

I really liked Christiania when I was there - not the giant open-air head shop toward the front, but the rustic backwoods part further in.

Okay, Shaheen, having given the matter some thought, I've decided that although the idea of investment-backed governments as a libertarian concept initially seems slightly silly, it is in fact completely fucking retarded.

The idea is that instead of taking (by whatever means) just the right amount of money to fulfill whatever functions you think the government should fulfill (fixing roads, providing law enforcement, preventing fires, maintaining vast pony breeding-grounds to provide a free pony to each little girl...), the government should take some extra because it will be able to invest it for a higher return than what its citizens would be able to do if they just kept the money for themselves.

I can vaguely see this if the money in question comes from mineral-rights rents (although even then, why not disburse the extra money to the citizens directly, a la Alaska and Norway, I think), but for governments whose only source of income comes from taxation or other user fees...

Sanaa, very honestly, I don't like defining myself as being part of some class. Plus is it really relevant?

Alle, Tom,

governments that seriously invest in something (...) will eventually start banning their competitors.

Like saying that a state which has a police will eventually abuse it. I guess the difference is between democracy and dictatorship. How states behave doesn't depend on the way their revenues come from taxes or from profits. Every state in this world already interferes in economy and participates in it. The extent to which it abuses that interference by creating monopolies and the such usually depends on how far it is on the left.

re market disturbances, using market power to political ends, etc. And that is different from taxes, how? At least, it fits in market mechanisms, it doesn't come as a continuous slash in the economy, it's more based in rational management than taxes which are based on the state's monopoly on violence.

The potential threats you're both mentionning are theoretical and based in ideology only. Those places which are already tax free seem to be doing just fine and are not experimenting those problems.

and ohbyetheway where do these governments get the cash to invest in profitable whatevers, if they don't happen to have massive mineral-resource rents?

Oil sure helps, but a switch from a tax based system to a tax free system doesn't happen overnight anyway, so that's not the determining factor. Quebec is one of the richest provinces in terms of resources, both in Canada and in the world. It has had one of the richest energy sectors around decades before Alberta. Yet, unlike Alberta, it's heavily involved in debt, it's one of the least economically dynamic, most heavily taxed provinces, and being a welfare state, it chose to heavily underprice its energy, which is why it's not a source of wealth. Alberta on the other hand chose to be fiscally conservative, sell its resources at market prices, create a favorable environment for free enterprise, etc. The result speaks by itself: Albertans earn more, live better and pay less taxes and their state invests to have them pay even less. Quebec struggles not to raise more insane taxes to pay for its existing programs, has one of the highest unemployment rates, 2 out of 5 don't pay taxes because they're too poor for it, and the most dynamic participants in economy, both individuals and businesses, are fleeing the province due to the tax burden.

it will be able to invest it for a higher return than what its citizens would be able to do if they just kept the money for themselves

Higher or not is not the question. Self-sustaining is.

Fucking retarded? Right. Go tell that to those countries which decided for example to switch from tax redistribution to pension funds. You remind me of the union commies in France who paralyze the country everytime such a switch is proposed and would rather see it bankrupt than change, for no other reason than "this is the state's prerogative".

it chose to heavily underprice its energy

If they did that, they're stupider than rocks. Thou shalt never subsidize natural resources, it is written here in this comment.

So Quebec, how French is its economy? As in union terrordome. Welfare economies differ too. Presently, Denmark is roaring, Sweden is whimpering. Devil's in the details, but I remember in the early nineties the roles were switched. Denmark now has tax-financed pension funds, seems to work fine. Also, the much vaunted flexicurity, something France should think about.

re Christiania, it's not what it used to be. Always been hashish on offer, but hard drugs got in, and gangs running those then got in on hashish. The hippies just don't run the place anymore, they're definitely against hard drugs, but are too afraid to actually do something about it. And they're not going to get their own police force, no sirree bob. Crime's there to stay. Sad.

Quebec has of course no other issues that might give it some problems working in an anglocentric marketplace, nor any kind of cultural difference with the rest of Canada.

And the fact that Alberta has, like, five people living in it probably makes splitting up the dosh a bit easier.

But my big problem is that, in fact, in countries with no mineral rents, trying to move to an investment-based revenue stream basically means RAISING TAXES. Why do you want to raise my taxes, Shaheen? Raising taxes makes baby Milton Friedman cry.

Okay, that came out more obnoxious than it should have. Apologies, big intercontinental move today, stress is doing strange things to my mind.

Quebec could be doing a lot better. Comparisons with Alberta are problematic, Ontario is probably more useful.

Alberta's fortunes (and arrogance) rise and fall with oil prices, so the Heritage Fund is a good way to keep oil money from really fucking up their economy. Didn't someone mention Norway having a similar escrow fund for their oil revenue?

With regard to Canadian healthcare, it is not a good idea to extrapolate based on one province (healthcare delivery is provincial jurisdiction). While the federal government tries to "equalize" by giving money to poorer provinces, quality can vary significantly depending on province, urban/rural, etc. I would not count Quebec among the top 3.

I don't like defining myself as being part of some class. Plus is it really relevant?

Sure, it’s relevant. People start off life at different points on the socioeconomic spectrum, are given different levels of opportunity and support (familial, state, and otherwise), and have different levels of innate ability (and yes, motivation). And have different obstacles thrown in their paths. Or don’t you think any of the above has the potential to affect an individual’s perspective on how realistic it is to lift oneself out of poverty?

eerie - Didn't someone mention Norway having a similar escrow fund for their oil revenue?

Yes, Norway stuffs most of its oil revenue into a gigantic savings fund, since they are doing just fine without it, and are not into building palmtree-shaped islands. Discovering oil AFTER you've developed a modern economy and abolished absolute monarchy has its advantages.

klaus - I don't particularly remember the Swedish early nineties as "roaring", the economy crashed. But now we're doing just fine. I'd even say that right now it's roaring, a modest kind of nanny state roar. And yes, the flexicurity thing seems to be working brilliantly for you. I want it here too.

I don't particularly remember the Swedish early nineties as "roaring", the economy crashed.

I actually remember Svend Auken, the then chairman of the Social Democrats, making 'Swedish conditions' an election promise. That was before the crash. Hmmm... it could have been the late eighties, possibly. At some point when Denmark had lots of unemployment.

There's a lovely dynamic between Denmark and Sweden here, at the moment lots of Swedes are working in Denmark where the jobs are, and lots of Danes moving to Sweden where cheaper housing can be had. It's also very obvious how this dynamic is helping Poland's workforce. Hurrah for the EC. It's odd to think some people are still opposed to membership. Whatever, Norway.

Must have been at the Danish general election of 1990. How does that sound?

Klaus,

So Quebec, how French is its economy? As in union terrordome.

The problem in Quebec is not unions. It's separatism. All other issues are put in the background when it's time to vote. With the one turn simple majority electoral system which favors a two parties political system, there's little room for other voices. So basically, your choice is Federalist (through Liberals, i.e. center-left by European standards) or Separatist (who happens to be populist, including on economic issues). There are important people trying to point out the amount of stupid mismanagement of Quebec's economy and resources, but they stand little chance of being heard, given that neither the separatist issue nor the current bipartisan system seem to be going away.

Tom,

Quebec has of course no other issues that might give it some problems working in an anglocentric marketplace, nor any kind of cultural difference with the rest of Canada.

Historical data doesn't support that argument. Quebec used to be the most important, richest and most dynamic province in Canada. It's with the introduction of the welfare state in Quebec in the 70s that its decline began in favor of Ontario first, then in favor of Alberta and British Columbia later.

And the fact that Alberta has, like, five people living in it probably makes splitting up the dosh a bit easier.

Alberta has 3.5 millions people, and a GDP of $200 billions. That's more than 25% of EU countries, or what, 1 out of every 3 Arab countries (for the population, no point in even mentioning the GDP).

in countries with no mineral rents, trying to move to an investment-based revenue stream basically means RAISING TAXES.

Not necessarily Tom, not any more than switching from a tax redistribution to a fund based pension for example. Priorities in financing are redefined every year by governments when they vote budgets, not all of which involve raising taxes.

Ironically, when you talk about pension funds in France the general reaction is the shocked one you have. On the other hand, when you talk about the French tax redistribution system to an anglo, the reaction is "fucking retards". It seems to me that the resistance to change on such areas stems more from either ideology or lack of exposure (ignorance IOW) than from rational arguments.

Eerie,

true re Ontario and Quebec being more comparable than Alberta. The comparison with Alberta when mentioning natural resources is relevant though in the sense that both Quebec and Alberta are net exporters of energy while Ontario is not.

Eva,

It certainly does affect perceptions but my personal profile is still irrelevant. There are many who didn't have it the easy way but would still tell you the same.

I actually remember Svend Auken, the then chairman of the Social Democrats, making 'Swedish conditions' an election promise. (...) Must have been at the Danish general election of 1990. How does that sound?

very likely. but i hope no one fell for it, the crash struck in 91.

A few things regarding Canada re the oil-Quebec-taxes discussion:

Alberta produces about 9% of the total of US and Canadian oil production. Quebec produces about 3% of the total of US and Canadian power production. Alberta has less than half the population of Quebec.

Quebec used to be the most important, richest and most dynamic province in Canada. It's with the introduction of the welfare state in Quebec in the 70s that its decline began in favor of Ontario first, then in favor of Alberta and British Columbia later.

There was an exodus of corporation from Quebec to Ontario following the 1976 election in which the separatist Parti Quebecois won a majority (and the subsequent 1980 referendum on separation). Montreal's crown as the business centre of Canada was passed to Toronto. Alberta's oil wealth increased steadily as the oil sands oil production slowly got under way, with the first barrel shipped by Syncrude in 1978.

I'm not saying these completely explain the economic situation, but I thought I'd point it out, for general information.

Zurn,

Separatism and ensuing political instability certainly played a role, but it has been a pending issue for the last 30 years, those businesses that were to leave because of it left then and the others learnt to live with it. But even when Liberals went back to power, businesses kept on leaving Quebec to Ontario (and sometimes Western Canada). In 2000-2005 alone Montreal lost 10% of its corporations' headquarters, while Toronto won the same. The economic press, experts, etc., in Quebec seem to generally agree about the reason: the unfriendly (comparatively to the rest of its North American environment) business environment, heavy taxes, social laws, etc..

Quebec also has to deal with the language issue, which is an added cost and complication of business. It also has a much larger population than Alberta, which comes with its own costs. On top of that, although it's a net energy exporter, there is far less profit to be made in hydro than in oil.

Furthermore Alberta's boom seems to be entirely oil driven, take that out and the province, despite its more business friendly laws, would probably be in no better shape than Quebec.

On top of all that, from a legal perspective, some of the most innovative laws (regarding social rights, governance, election laws and the environment) have come out of Quebec. Besides Montreal and Quebec have got to be two of the best cities to live in in North America.

Getting back to the health care issue. I think it's worth noting that (as far as I can tell) every developed country spends roughly 20-30% of its budget on health care. The US is no exception. Take a look at the spending on medicare.
http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/factfiles_detail.cfm?issue_type=federal_budget&list=8

One of the concerns of the American law makers has got to be "if medicare already costs this much, how the hell could we afford to cover everyone. Especially with social security threatening to pull us under, the largest deficit in history and the American hatred of taxes."

Think what you will of it, but America's enormous military budget limits the government's ability to fund social projects like universal medical care.

It's also worth noting that this lack of funding primarily hurts middle and lower middle class citizens who do not have enough insurance to cover certain serious medical procedures, because they risk bankruptcy. I believe hospitals have to treat everyone, so just because they don't have insurance doesn't mean they'll actually die in the street.

The other cost of the lack of health care is borne by the economy, as it limits job mobility (you can only move once you find another job with health care benefits) and the necessity of offering health insurance increases the cost of doing business. This is particularly relevant to those who only look at the business tax structure when comparing the US and other countries. There are other costs at play...

Anyway, from what I've seen it would be more efficient overall to institute a single payer system (this is not what Canada has, we have a different payer in each province). However, there are also large inefficiency in public health care provision (see the Romanow report), that could be patched up with enough will and political capital.

Overall, I wouldn't take the Walter Reed case as a good example of social medicine. It's a much better example of the dramatic mismanagement of the current White House and it's poorly planned and supervised private outsourcing programs; and the lack of accountability inherent in the US's military spending.

geez, how many Canadians are here anyway?

I wouldn't take the Walter Reed case as a good example of social medicine. It's a much better example of the dramatic mismanagement of the current White House

Far as I can gather, it's always been that way. Don't know if you've ever read Ron Kovic's Born on the Fourth of July, it's completely the same. The people at Intel Dump also think so, they should know. Great site.

About the Alberta fund discussion: I am not at all opposed to forced-by-tax investment, if that's what it takes to flatten the income diamond. Slightly worried about conflict of interests, but whatev. But I still think Monaco is a parasite. It can only subsist on its casino because it's surrounded by far larger countries that do not subsist on casinos. I'd like to see Britain run on horse racing.

What's the difference between medicare and medicaid?

Medicare is for old people, and since everyone more or less expects to get old, it gets decent funding and can't really be cut without dire political consequences. On the other hand, being only for the old, there's problems with the risk pool.

Medicaid is for poor people, and consequently there is no political cost to cutting it, and so it's chronically underfunded, leading to situations like this. (But hey, all the more incentive to become wealthy).

Did Tom Tomorrow read this post?.

Tom, Klaus,
Medicare policy however is set at the State, not the Federal level. Some places the poor have more political power than others. I worked for a while in Children's Nat'l Medical Center in DC, and Maryland, DC and Virginia had completely different Medicare laws. I don't know what the qualification cutoffs were in the 3 jurisdictions, but I know DC, where over half the government is elected by poor people, covered the first $6,000/mo of any expense, no conditions or co-payments. Virginia had a more southern, limited plan (and also lower taxes), though we didn't get many Medicare patients from VA. MD had something in the middle, I think with more conditions attached as to what they would pay for but with a higher cap for chronic care. Anyway, the hospital liked Medicare patients because payment was assured. 'Self-pay' patients on the other hand were considered write-offs; their bills were artificially kept as low as possible and the difference made by pumping up insured patients' bills. For the life of me I don't understand why the big American insurance companies don't push for government insurance for the people they won't insure, because they (rather, their clients via premiums) end up paying a chunk of it, anyway.

Oh bugger I totally missed this. Got to get my head out of my work..

Tory, you mean medicaid, right?

Dur, dur, yes, Medicaid.