What would Milton Friedman say?
Stephen Moore, senior economics writer at the WSJ, speculates about Friedman's response to the current economic crisis in his new book, How Barack Obama is Bankrupting the U.S. Economy:
As Friedman said in his book, Capitalism and Freedom,
"freedom is a rare and delicate plant."
Yes, it is.
At times like this, I become more nostalgic for the indispensable missing voice in this debate: Milton Friedman's. No one could slice and dice the sophistry of the left's government-market interventions better than Friedman. Imagine what he would have to say about the arrogance of the U.S. government of owning and operating the car companies or managing the $2 trillion health-care industry. "Why not?" I can almost hear him ask. "After all, they've done such a wonderful job of delivering the mail..."
"I've been thinking a lot lately about one of my last conversations with Friedman, when he warned that "even though socialism is a discredited economic model and capitalism is raising standards to new heights, the left intellectuals continue to push for bigger government everywhere I look." He predicted that people would be seduced by collectivist ideas again. He was right.
As Friedman said in his book, Capitalism and Freedom,
"freedom is a rare and delicate plant." Yes, it is.
I wonder if Tiger Woods will get the same treatment Rihanna got when it came to domestic violence? Somehow, I doubt Diane Sawyer will be interviewing him on Good Morning America about his injuries--at least, not with any sympathy.
"...a warm greeting to a would-be robber eliminates psychological 'trigger points' "
I was reading an article in Forbes magazine today about the decline in bank robberies during the current recession. The reason: Wal-mart-sytle greetings:
I had noticed a warmer reception at banks lately. I just thought bankers had gotten friendlier but I guess they are just hoping you won't rob the place.
Since 1979 the average number of bank robberies in the U.S. has been a dismaying 11 per 100 commercial bank branches. But in the past year, despite the recession, bank robberies are down to only 6 per 100. The industry gives lots of the credit to those overly friendly greeters who many banks have seemingly poached from Wal-Mart ( WMT - news - people ) stores.
Branches are now pressing guards, tellers and even branch managers to say hello and look every entering customer in the face. It makes customers feel welcome and crooks a bit intimidated. "The last thing a bank robber wants is to be noticed," says W. Douglas Johnson, head of security policy analysis at the American Bankers Association.
Using greeters to spook potential bank robbers has spread quickly since 2006, when a Seattle FBI agent, Lawrence Carr, included the idea in a widely disseminated program taught to bank security officers called SafeCatch. Carr, who spent five years studying bank robberies and interviewing crooks, argues that a warm greeting to a would-be robber eliminates psychological "trigger points"--confidence, anonymity, control over his fear--that the robber needs to go ahead with the crime.
I had noticed a warmer reception at banks lately. I just thought bankers had gotten friendlier but I guess they are just hoping you won't rob the place.
Darn it: I'm getting a mammogram
I wasn't going to get one this year. I am in my forties and started getting mammograms in my thirties, thanks to a family history of cancer. But it's been awhile and I was going to put it off this year but I figure with all that is going on in the healthcare debate, mammograms might be rationed or just not available for many of us.
And, contrarian that I am, I figured that by going against the just released recommendations, I'm going get all the healthcare I desire, cause, at this point, I can. So to all you contrarians like me out there who were thinking of putting off a mammogram, I say, schedule that appointment ASAP. For who knows how long before ObamaCare makes this medical test a thing of the past?
And, contrarian that I am, I figured that by going against the just released recommendations, I'm going get all the healthcare I desire, cause, at this point, I can. So to all you contrarians like me out there who were thinking of putting off a mammogram, I say, schedule that appointment ASAP. For who knows how long before ObamaCare makes this medical test a thing of the past?
"Your right to bring your screaming child on a plane ends where the rest of our ears begin."
Amy Alkon, author of I See Rude People: One woman's battle to beat some manners into impolite society,
has an op-ed out in the LA Times about screaming kids on planes:
I tend to have some sympathy for parents who have crying kids. Those of us who are parents as well as others who are not understand that kids cry sometimes. What I don't have sympathy for are parents who in no way discipline their children while out in public. While I understand that parent's rights to discipline are limited given that the state interferes at times when a parent does discipline, I don't think the solution is to do nothing. I have seen parents who allow kids to do very harmful and terrible things in public and then wonder why the kid turns out to be such an ass when he or she gets older. If a kid does not understand how to act in certain settings, teach him or her or don't put them in that setting until they are older. The world will be a better (and quieter) place.
What do you think, screaming kids allowed on planes or not? I would also love to hear any stories you have about kids who have acted up in public and whether or not you said or did anything.
has an op-ed out in the LA Times about screaming kids on planes:More and more, we're all victims of these many small muggings every day. Our perp doesn't wear a ski mask or carry a gun; he wears Dockers and shouts into his iPhone in the line behind us at Starbucks, streaming his dull life into our brains, never considering for a moment whether our attention belongs to him. These little acts of social thuggery are inconsequential in and of themselves, but they add up -- wearing away at our patience and good nature and making our daily lives feel like one big wrestling smackdown.
Southwest sent the right message in yanking Root and her screaming boy off the plane. Unfortunately, it lacked the corporate courage to stand its ground, probably fearing a public relations nightmare from the Mommy Mafia. Yet, almost every day, I encounter parents who need to get the same message Root initially did. Trust me -- should I long to hear screaming children, I'll zip right past my favorite coffeehouse and go read my morning paper at Chuck E. Cheese.
I tend to have some sympathy for parents who have crying kids. Those of us who are parents as well as others who are not understand that kids cry sometimes. What I don't have sympathy for are parents who in no way discipline their children while out in public. While I understand that parent's rights to discipline are limited given that the state interferes at times when a parent does discipline, I don't think the solution is to do nothing. I have seen parents who allow kids to do very harmful and terrible things in public and then wonder why the kid turns out to be such an ass when he or she gets older. If a kid does not understand how to act in certain settings, teach him or her or don't put them in that setting until they are older. The world will be a better (and quieter) place.
What do you think, screaming kids allowed on planes or not? I would also love to hear any stories you have about kids who have acted up in public and whether or not you said or did anything.
I was just reading about Black Friday on CNBC and it seems that many people have less interest in shopping that day:
I was never a big fan of Black Friday and can't imagine fighting crowds to get a few gifts. I've already done most of my shopping online. What about you?
A survey by Persuadable Research for online shopping guide dealnews.com, however, found just 46 percent of respondents plan to �definitely� shop on Black Friday this year, a 12 percent drop from those who took to the stores in 2008....
The survey by Persuadable Research found a majority of shoppers (59 percent) say they would rather shop online for Black Friday deals this year than fight the crowds.
I was never a big fan of Black Friday and can't imagine fighting crowds to get a few gifts. I've already done most of my shopping online. What about you?
PJTV: Fighting for Political Diversity
Today, I talk with Policy Analyst Jessica Custer who is ?North Carolina State Chair of the Network of Enlightened Women (NeW), a group that is standing up to anti-male bias and anti-conservative messages that are rampant on college campuses across the US. This group of conservative women believe that women are not victims, men are not oppressors and (shock) that most men are decent guys.
Think you're dreaming--is it possible that women are actually standing up to the biased feminism in colleges these days? It's reality. Watch the show and meet Ms. Custer, who has some really interesting things to say about women, feminism, the hook-up culture and fighting for political diversity. And how conservative men can get a date.
You can watch here.
"Democrats and Unaffiliateds More Likely To Be Unemployed Than Republicans"
This is interesting:
Data from Rasmussen Reports national telephone surveys shows that 15.0% of Democrats in the workforce are currently unemployed and looking for a job. Among adults not affiliated with either major party, that number is 15.6% while just 9.9% of Republicans are in the same situation.
"I was abused by a woman and it haunts me every day "
This story is an important one:
The psychology of men is so much more complex when it comes to abuse than we realize. Read the article and let me know what you think.
It seems unthinkable, but ChildLine says calls from boys abused by women have doubled in a year. This deeply disturbing investigation reveals the terrible impact of a crime that society has never dared to confront.
The psychology of men is so much more complex when it comes to abuse than we realize. Read the article and let me know what you think.
Twenty-six percent (26%) of employed adults say they have seriously thought that someone in their workplace was capable of mass violence...
I read this poll over at Rasmussen and wasn't surprised:
A few thoughts about this. First, why do so many government workers think their co-workers want to commit mass violence? Could it be that there are just so many government workers that some may seem or act in a way that makes people think they are violent? Could it be that government workers are more suspicious of their co-workers, or could it be that the government does a poor job of screening and hires people who have behavior that is unstable, and never gets rid of them?
Second, are men just more suspicious of people or better at sensing dangerous behavior than women? And finally, with 26% of respondents to this poll thinking that their co-worker is the next mass murderer, it is reassuring to know that there are only about 1000 people murdered at work each year. But, less reassuring is 1.5 million are assaulted in the workplace each year.
A good book that I use if you are looking for one on the topic is Preventing Workplace Violence: A Guide for Employers and Practitioners.
Twenty-six percent (26%) of employed adults say they have seriously thought that someone in their workplace was capable of mass violence, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Most working adults (64%), however, say they have not seriously thought a co-worker would be capable of such violence. Another 11% are undecided.
One-in-three men (33%) say they have held that thought before, compared to only 17% of women.
Forty-three percent (43%) of government workers say they have felt a fellow employee was capable of mass violence, more than double the number among those who work for private companies.
A few thoughts about this. First, why do so many government workers think their co-workers want to commit mass violence? Could it be that there are just so many government workers that some may seem or act in a way that makes people think they are violent? Could it be that government workers are more suspicious of their co-workers, or could it be that the government does a poor job of screening and hires people who have behavior that is unstable, and never gets rid of them?
Second, are men just more suspicious of people or better at sensing dangerous behavior than women? And finally, with 26% of respondents to this poll thinking that their co-worker is the next mass murderer, it is reassuring to know that there are only about 1000 people murdered at work each year. But, less reassuring is 1.5 million are assaulted in the workplace each year.
A good book that I use if you are looking for one on the topic is Preventing Workplace Violence: A Guide for Employers and Practitioners.
Even the dog gets better treatment.....
I came across an article in Time magazine entitled, "Spendthrift Spouses Could Hurt Holiday Shopping" that looked kind of interesting:
But here is what caught my eye:
Great, so a dog is more likely than a husband to get a gift at Christmas? The article doesn't say but I wonder if husbands would dare give a gift to a dog rather than to their wife? If I was a guy and Fido received a gift and I got none, I would be really pissed. Would you?
What might be the driving factor that lowers holiday retail sales and stalls a much-anticipated economic recovery? Stingy spouses with children. According to a new survey from America's Research Group, a retail-consulting firm, 50.1% of parents plan on cutting back on gifts to each other this year. That figure is up from 44.4% last year, a surprising jump considering that the U.S. was in the depths of the financial crisis during the previous holiday season. "Parents want to maintain gift-spending levels for their kids, so they are showing more willingness to trim on each other," says Britt Beemer, founder and chairman of America's Research Group.
But here is what caught my eye:
Even the pooch may be getting better treatment than Pops. In a separate Consumer Reports survey, 22% of women who expected to reduce their holiday spending said they would be cutting back on gifts for their spouse. Only 14% said they would cut back on gifts for their pets. Ruff.
Great, so a dog is more likely than a husband to get a gift at Christmas? The article doesn't say but I wonder if husbands would dare give a gift to a dog rather than to their wife? If I was a guy and Fido received a gift and I got none, I would be really pissed. Would you?
"I see Rude People"
Advice Columnist Amy Alkon has a new book that just came out, I See Rude People: One woman's battle to beat some manners into impolite society, which is terrific. She is featured in a New York Times article on people fighting back against rudeness:
It depends how people are rude as to whether I would say anything. If they say something in a way that tries to restrict freedom or that puts an entire group down, I might speak up. You know, like when store clerks yell "All men are pigs!" Guys or gals on cells phones, not so much.
What about you? If someone is rude in public, do you say anything?
which is terrific. She is featured in a New York Times article on people fighting back against rudeness:Ms. Alkon, the advice columnist, shares this philosophy. Extreme shaming can work, she said, adding that the next time she saw Barry, the guy from Starbucks, he was talking on his cellphone outside the store rather than in it. She likes to think she had something to do with that.
�There are people in this world who just don�t care about you or anyone else,� said Ms. Alkon, the author of �I See Rude People� (McGraw-Hill Companies) coming out this month. �They are going to inflict themselves on you, and the only way to stop them is to show them there�s a cost.�
It depends how people are rude as to whether I would say anything. If they say something in a way that tries to restrict freedom or that puts an entire group down, I might speak up. You know, like when store clerks yell "All men are pigs!" Guys or gals on cells phones, not so much.
What about you? If someone is rude in public, do you say anything?
MSNBC: Teacher shortage has given way to teacher glut (via Newsalert):
Since last fall, school systems, state education agencies, technical schools and colleges have shed about 125,000 jobs, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
At the same time, many teachers who had planned to retire or switch jobs are staying on because of the recession, and many people who have been laid off in other fields are trying to carve out second careers as teachers or applying to work as substitutes to make ends meet....
But the nationwide demand for teachers in 60 out of 61 subjects has declined from a year earlier, according to an annual report issued this week by the American Association for Employment in Education. Only one subject � math � was listed as having an extreme shortage of teachers. In recent years, more than a dozen subjects had extreme shortages.
Why is it so easy to fire this man for saying something politically incorrect and so hard to even investigate this man who writes emails to the enemy, readily discusses his leanings toward faith-inspired violence at work and in seminars and encourages patients to convert to Islam?
"They said Hasan also once tried to convert a patient to Islam and that he received a verbal warning."
Drudge linked to a story at NPR entitled, "Answers Sought On Fort Hood Suspect's Link To Imam." Within the story was this:
Well, at least Hasan wasn't trying to convert his patients from gay to straight. Now that would definitely have led to an investigation.
The officials also dismissed the significance of reports that Hasan's colleagues complained about his religious and political views. One official said they get thousands of complaints every year, some of which lead to investigations, while others do not.
Two psychiatrists who worked with Hasan at Walter Reed and asked not to be identified told NPR that during the six years he worked there, he was frequently distracted and often late for work. They said Hasan also once tried to convert a patient to Islam and that he received a verbal warning.
At one point, the psychiatrists said, some co-workers actively sought to have Hasan removed from the Walter Reed program. He was later reassigned to Fort Hood.
Well, at least Hasan wasn't trying to convert his patients from gay to straight. Now that would definitely have led to an investigation.
Signs of the times...
Have people become so unwilling to buy music that musicians have resorted to this? It's sad.
Glenn and I went to Asheville, N.C. this week where I held the camera and he interviewed grassroots activists for PJTV from all over the country who had gathered for a conference of the free market, state-focused think tank community (SPN).
You can watch here.
You can watch here.
Brain Lock
Do you or someone you know have Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and don't know where to turn for help? A good place to start is with the book, Brain Lock: Free Yourself from Obsessive-Compulsive Behavior.
This self-help book is written by Jeffrey Schwartz, a psychiatrist at UCLA School of Medicine who says that OCD is related to a biochemical imbalance in the brain, rather than due specifically to emotional factors.
Schwartz states in bold letters that "we have scientific evidence that cognitive-behavioral therapy alone actually causes chemical changes in the brains of people with OCD." In the book, he teaches the person with OCD to change their brain chemistry.
He does this by focusing on a Four Step Program: Relabel, Reattribute, Refocus, and Revalue. "Relabel" is when you call the intrusive thought or urge to do a troublesome compulsive behavior exactly what it is in order learn the difference between OCD and reality. "Reattribute" is when you answer the question, "Why does this keep bothering me?" and remind yourself that you have the symptoms of a medical problem and take action, "What can I do about it?" "Refocus" is learning to turn your attention to more constructive behaviors. Finally, "Revalue" is learning to view OCD symptoms as the useless garbage they really are.
I have read other books on OCD in the past but had not read this one until today. I recommend it if you would like to know more about OCD or how to help yourself or someone else take action to change his or her behavior. For those with OCD frequently live very inhibited and restricted lives full of internal suffering, though often, they look okay to the outside world.
Do you have or know anyone with OCD? If so, share your experience or thoughts in the comments.
This self-help book is written by Jeffrey Schwartz, a psychiatrist at UCLA School of Medicine who says that OCD is related to a biochemical imbalance in the brain, rather than due specifically to emotional factors. Schwartz states in bold letters that "we have scientific evidence that cognitive-behavioral therapy alone actually causes chemical changes in the brains of people with OCD." In the book, he teaches the person with OCD to change their brain chemistry.
He does this by focusing on a Four Step Program: Relabel, Reattribute, Refocus, and Revalue. "Relabel" is when you call the intrusive thought or urge to do a troublesome compulsive behavior exactly what it is in order learn the difference between OCD and reality. "Reattribute" is when you answer the question, "Why does this keep bothering me?" and remind yourself that you have the symptoms of a medical problem and take action, "What can I do about it?" "Refocus" is learning to turn your attention to more constructive behaviors. Finally, "Revalue" is learning to view OCD symptoms as the useless garbage they really are.
I have read other books on OCD in the past but had not read this one until today. I recommend it if you would like to know more about OCD or how to help yourself or someone else take action to change his or her behavior. For those with OCD frequently live very inhibited and restricted lives full of internal suffering, though often, they look okay to the outside world.
Do you have or know anyone with OCD? If so, share your experience or thoughts in the comments.
"Anger is an energy"
I read this line from a Johnny Rotten (the Sex Pistols) song on Gateway Pundit from a commenter (comment #62) in response to the passing of the Democrat's Healthcare bill last night.
The commenters at Gateway Pundit are debating whether or not there is anything that can be done to stop the Dems from passing this bill. Rotten's line is a good one as a metaphor for the fight against a statist government that desires to take over our liberty, our economy, and even our very lives. Often, I hear Republicans and conservatives say that we are "doomed." This negative cognitive self-talk is pathetic. It is crippling. Don't engage in it.
You are never doomed until you are dead. There is always something that can be done. The anger of the American public is only just beginning. It is an energy that will be needed in the coming days, weeks and months to protest, stand up, debate, argue and get in the face of every government official, public figure and others who support a bill that leads us down The Road to Serfdom.
And even if the bill passes, we can continue the fight, for they have won only a cultural battle, not the culture war. Culture changes politics, not the other way around. I will be fighting back against a culture that leads to less individual autonomy in every way I know how. Will you?
The commenters at Gateway Pundit are debating whether or not there is anything that can be done to stop the Dems from passing this bill. Rotten's line is a good one as a metaphor for the fight against a statist government that desires to take over our liberty, our economy, and even our very lives. Often, I hear Republicans and conservatives say that we are "doomed." This negative cognitive self-talk is pathetic. It is crippling. Don't engage in it.
You are never doomed until you are dead. There is always something that can be done. The anger of the American public is only just beginning. It is an energy that will be needed in the coming days, weeks and months to protest, stand up, debate, argue and get in the face of every government official, public figure and others who support a bill that leads us down The Road to Serfdom.
And even if the bill passes, we can continue the fight, for they have won only a cultural battle, not the culture war. Culture changes politics, not the other way around. I will be fighting back against a culture that leads to less individual autonomy in every way I know how. Will you?
Affirmative action for men?
A reader (thanks!) sent me a WSJ article entitled, "The Lost Boys" written by Richard Whitmire, author of a forthcoming book, Why Boys Fail: Saving Our Sons from an Educational System That's Leaving Them Behind.
The article discusses universities admitting men with lower qualifications than women, and why guys might need these preferences:
What is a mystery to me is why so many schools and colleges don't "get" that they are anti-male, pro-female (liberal only) and designed to teach in ways that are not conducive to attracting men but that is another post. This one is on affirmative action for men.
Typically, I would not be for any type of affirmative action. I think people who are qualified, regardless of race and gender, should be admitted to these universities, end of story. But in today's PC world, that is not possible. If we admit people based on their gender and race, then we must do it in an equitable way. Men should be represented at colleges in equal numbers to women since they comprise roughly half (a little less these days) of the population.
What do you think?
The article discusses universities admitting men with lower qualifications than women, and why guys might need these preferences:This week, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights announced that it will investigate whether colleges discriminate against women by admitting less qualified men. It will strike many as odd to think that American men would need such a leg up. From the men-only basketball games at the White House to the testosterone club on Wall Street, we seem surrounded by male dominance....
In theory, the surge in the number of educated women should make up for male shortcomings when we're looking at the overall prospects for the economy. But men and women are not the same. At the same levels of education, women remain less inclined to roll the dice on risky business start-ups or to grind out careers in isolated tech labs. Revenue generated by women-owned businesses remains less than 5% of all revenue. And while the number of women taking on economically important majors is rising, women still earn only a fifth of the bachelor's degrees granted in physics, computer science and engineering.
Why males don't seem to "get" the importance of a college education is a mystery, especially considering the current collapse of jobs that traditionally don't require post-high-school study.
What is a mystery to me is why so many schools and colleges don't "get" that they are anti-male, pro-female (liberal only) and designed to teach in ways that are not conducive to attracting men but that is another post. This one is on affirmative action for men.
Typically, I would not be for any type of affirmative action. I think people who are qualified, regardless of race and gender, should be admitted to these universities, end of story. But in today's PC world, that is not possible. If we admit people based on their gender and race, then we must do it in an equitable way. Men should be represented at colleges in equal numbers to women since they comprise roughly half (a little less these days) of the population.
What do you think?
Why wasn't Hasan Investigated?
After reading about the horrific Ft. Hood shootings, I was rather puzzled when I read the following:
This man was being entrusted with the mental health of soldiers, and no one could be bothered to take the time to find out if he was mentally stable himself? After a poor review, remarks that make you wonder which side this guy was on, and possible writings on a web posting that are troubling, he was not investigated?
Was it political correctness and concern for his Muslim heritage that kept officials from looking further into his mental health? Was the army so desperate for a psychiatrist (there is always a shortage) they didn't dare do anything?
The public deserves an explanation.
Update: AllahPundit at Hot Air has much more on the topic.
Federal law enforcement officials told the Associated Press that Hasan had come to their attention at least six months ago because of Internet postings that discussed homicide bombings and other threats. The officials said they are still trying to confirm that he was the author.
One of the Web postings that authorities reviewed is a blog that equates homicide bombers with a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades.
"To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause," said the Internet posting. "Scholars have paralled (sic) this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers."
They say an official investigation was not opened.
Hasan was working with soldiers at Darnall Army Medical Center on Fort Hood after being transferred in July from Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where he had worked for six years before recently receiving a poor review.
This man was being entrusted with the mental health of soldiers, and no one could be bothered to take the time to find out if he was mentally stable himself? After a poor review, remarks that make you wonder which side this guy was on, and possible writings on a web posting that are troubling, he was not investigated?
Was it political correctness and concern for his Muslim heritage that kept officials from looking further into his mental health? Was the army so desperate for a psychiatrist (there is always a shortage) they didn't dare do anything?
The public deserves an explanation.
Update: AllahPundit at Hot Air has much more on the topic.
Scared of Flying? There's an App for That
This is kind of cool:
I could use that. Or if you are like me and don't have an iPhone, you can get the book with the same name, Flying Without Fear 101 questions answered.
People scared of flying can now press a button on their iPhone to help them deal with their panic.
Long-haul airline Virgin Atlantic Airways has launched an application, or app, for its Flying Without Fear course which boasts a success rate of over 98 percent....
A spokesman from Mental Workout said an estimated one in every three adults were scared of flying.
The Flying Without Fear app has an introduction by Branson, a video-based in-flight explanation of a flight, frequently asked questions, relaxation exercises and a fear attack button for emergencies with breathing exercises.
I could use that. Or if you are like me and don't have an iPhone, you can get the book with the same name, Flying Without Fear 101 questions answered.
Gambling with our health care system
I saw that Dr. David Gratzer's new book, Why Obama's Government Takeover of Health Care Will Be a Disaster 
is now out. Glenn received a copy last week and I read it in one sitting as it is small, compact and full of great information on free-market health care reform. He is also the author of The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care
that I read when it came out last year.
Gratzer, a psychiatrist, is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He uses examples from his experience with the failures of the Canadian system to show why socialized medicine doesn't work. He was born and raised in Canada and at one point, believed that government health care was "compassionate and equitable." He soon learned that this was a crock, after a relative and other patients couldn't get the care they needed and were left to suffer.
Most notable about his current book is that he disputes many of the arguments in favor of government-controlled health care and uses facts to back up his statements. For example, Gratzer points out that "some argue that countries with government-run health care have found a way to tame the health-inflation problem. They claim that while costs spiral up in the US, there countries are doing better." He found that the cost of health care in socialized-care countries like France, Canada, and Ireland is growing at roughly the same rate as in the United States. "Between 2000 and 2006, the OECD average real annual growth rate for health spending was 4.9 percent; the US rate was 4.95 percent. Despite the rationing and central government control, these countries haven't stopped the trend of rising costs."
The book is quite good if you want a handy, compact book that succinctly makes the argument against universal health care and for free-market reform. I have used it several times in discussions with others on the topic. But if you want more detail, I suggest you read Gratzer's book, "The Cure."
is now out. Glenn received a copy last week and I read it in one sitting as it is small, compact and full of great information on free-market health care reform. He is also the author of The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care that I read when it came out last year.Gratzer, a psychiatrist, is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He uses examples from his experience with the failures of the Canadian system to show why socialized medicine doesn't work. He was born and raised in Canada and at one point, believed that government health care was "compassionate and equitable." He soon learned that this was a crock, after a relative and other patients couldn't get the care they needed and were left to suffer.
Most notable about his current book is that he disputes many of the arguments in favor of government-controlled health care and uses facts to back up his statements. For example, Gratzer points out that "some argue that countries with government-run health care have found a way to tame the health-inflation problem. They claim that while costs spiral up in the US, there countries are doing better." He found that the cost of health care in socialized-care countries like France, Canada, and Ireland is growing at roughly the same rate as in the United States. "Between 2000 and 2006, the OECD average real annual growth rate for health spending was 4.9 percent; the US rate was 4.95 percent. Despite the rationing and central government control, these countries haven't stopped the trend of rising costs."
The book is quite good if you want a handy, compact book that succinctly makes the argument against universal health care and for free-market reform. I have used it several times in discussions with others on the topic. But if you want more detail, I suggest you read Gratzer's book, "The Cure."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)