Different Euro countries have different systems. The NHS in the UK is not supported by any insurance company, apart from itself I guess. Medical insurance goes on top of that so you can have the good looking receptionist and stuff.

Ahhh, a lucid post that sums up the developmentalist approach to dealing with the "population problem".

Thank you.

The interesting thing about population is that its rate of growth (excluding immigration) falls as societies become more developed. The best way to achieve a stable, or even falling, population, is to promote development in currently underdeveloped countries. I'll probably get a [citation needed] comment at this point, but the data is out there.

No need for Malthusian doom and gloom. Development will solve the "population problem".

The problem is the environmental impact of our current path of development. A steady move to a more environmentally sustainable development model, combined with a development push will (well, "may" is a probably a better word) lead to a better, more viable, planet for all.

But I haven't got a growth...

So, how tall are you?

Mate, your story is truly a fucking disgrace. How anyone can be defending the system you are having to operate in is truly beyond me. From a Euro perspective, the anti state health care position seems delusional. How can it possibly be in the wider social, moral and economic interest to be placing a family such as yours into such a situation?

It's only words, but I feel for you.

Yeah, and those guys who work for private companies, man they rock. I wish everything in society could be run by corporations, it would be so awesome.

Hahahaha, yeah. Involved in two wars and with 10% of your population on food stamps, how's that free enterprise system working out for ya?

A question for you. What is it that limits the speed of light? If photons are massless, what other property of photons or the universe sets their speed?

Yeah, but the extra tax take means the government can afford to create MORE JOBS. Does this sound like a bad idea? It's a circular flow people, taxation doesn't create or destroy, its redistribution. Which, just happens to prop up aggregate demand, put more income in to working people's pockets and they spend it. It's good for the economy. Think of it as fiscal stimulus. Does that taste better?

Thank you, someone who understands the circular flow of income. Tax isn't about there being more or less "money" or spending, its about placing some of the output of society under collective democratic control. Its about, you know, sharing some stuff a bit. That's alright, isn't it?

You can slice statistics a few different ways here though. Remember that the free trade models make two major predictions:

1. Total welfare is increased by free trade. This seems to be the case on average. Higher GDP, lower real prices for consumer goods as production moves to more efficient locations or process. This is unambiguously a good thing (as a first approximation).

2. There will be a redistribution of income between the factors of production leading to what is called factor price equalisation. This is much more complicated (and less supported by empirical evidence). Anyway, what this means is that labour say (one of the factors of production) should tend to have its income equalised over trading countries. Here is where your stagnant wages for the working class in the US over the last 40 years comes from.

Needless to say, lots of noise is made about 1 in favour of free trade, much less about 2.

Yeah, but that's not really explaining the joke though....

Go back a couple of hundred minutes and people believed everything was created by a big man in the sky!!

You're completely ignoring the degree of brainwashing and how many US citizens genuinely believe George Washington and Barrack Obama are the greatest leaders in the world.