I blog at 17Seeds.com and would like to trackback to this post in my Wednesday (July 9) blog. Hope that’s okay.

Also, I’d like to do a link exchange. I’m a writer (two novels that center around racial reconciliation and racial awareness in US) and I’m an adoptive mom.

Read more about me and my books at LLhargrove.com. Looking forward to hearing/reading more from you. Thanks.

–
Linda Leigh Hargrove
The Making of Isaac Hunt, June 2007
Loving Cee Cee Johnson, Sept. 2008
(Moody Publishers/Lift Every Voice)
http://www.LLHargrove.com
linda@llhargrove.com

On a per capita basis, Americans spend more money on health care than any other nation. Obviously this doesn’t tell you how health care is spread across the country, but, even if you’re in the bottom 10th of population & in a program like medicaid, there’s really no comparison to the type of health the bottom 10th in any developing country would receive (close to none). Or even comparing it to they type of health care any of the poor receive in developing countries. Even if you have no health care in the US (I’ve been there), you still have the option of walking into a hospital and receiving excellent care. Yes, it may bankrupt you - but it could also save your life.

Now, whether Americans get good health care returns on the money they spend… that’s a little more questionable. Certainly it seems like other countries can make their (typically single-payer) systems go farther - that is, they seem to have better health in the general population for their money spent. There are a few counters to this. For instance, America is the main pharmaceutical and health care technology innovator, and we pay for that innovation in higher costs. Other countries can use the technology developed here (especially in pharmaceuticals) for much cheaper. Then there’s the fact that Americans are much less healthy than other folk due to lifestyle effects that aren’t related to the health care indudstry - poorer diets, less exercise, etc. When you control for these effects, the American system doesn’t look *too* bad in comparison to other systems.

To address the issue of people making “excess” amounts of money… Well, first off, the money they make IS being reinvested in businesses that will benefit other people - that’s what investment in the stock market *is*, after all. Money that rich people make is funneled back into the economy through their investments; it’s not being stockpiled in their vault ala Scrooge McDuck. Of course, they still retain control over that money, so perhaps that doesn’t solve your problem…

Personally, I think that, most of the time, the amount very rich people get paid really is fair given the value they add to the rest of the world. Consider Bill Gates. Sure, his net worth is about $58 billion. But his ideas, and the company he created (Microsoft) have given far, far more back to the US & the world in terms of work efficiency & personal enjoyment with computers. And this is true of most entrepreneurs & innovators - almost always they’ve added far more value into the world through their creations than they’ve received back.

Others get high compensation because no one can do what they can do (David Beckham & most entertainment/sports stars). People want to see others perform certain skills, be it singing, acting, playing sports, or whatever, and only certain individuals can perform at high-caliber levels. Those who can perform well get rewarded. My view is that those rewards are perfectly fair, given the entertainment value they’re giving others. Now, if you have problems with what people value in entertainment, I’m right there with you, but the underlying problem to be solved is in what people value, not in the entertainers themselves.

Still others get high compensation because they’re taking a fair amount of risk (most CEOs). If a company has a major misstep, the CEO will typically be fired (or forced to resign) for allowing it to happen. Because of this, there’s an incentive for CEOs to not take risks, even if it will help the company - after all, it’s rare for a CEO to be fired because he failed to capitalize on some innovation from R&D that would have made the company millions, since no one *knows* about the innovation. So to give the CEO a competing incentive to take the risks that companies need to take, they’re given high compensation, and even high leave packages, with the idea being that they’ll keep taking risks because they’ll have plenty of money even if they’re fired.

Now, I’m all in favor of those with high wealth donating that money to those who need it, like the Gates & Buffet have done.

My daughter has a salwar kameez, and does wear it on occasion. As she gets older, this gets a bit harder, because she recognizes it’s different than what her friends wear. At the same time, she gets really excited when she sees someone in a sari!

i’ve personally been on welfare and medicaid before, and “so much” is relative when it’s on an individual level. while the wealthy have access to the expensive health care, many of the poor do not. your point is intriguing, and i’d love to hear more about how it might play out.

one of my personal soapboxes is that no human being should ever make more thant $10 million/year. for example, if it is possible for the CEO of a major company to make more, that should be reinvested in a fashion that would direct the profit to benefit people who would benefit from their business (i.e. lower cost drugs from pharmaceutical companies, etc.) this would lower the level of affluence (while not really taking it away) and as a result benefit the poorest of the poor. as it stands, it seems to me that unregulated affluence only serves to drive a bigger gap between the rich and the poor, which then serves to foster divides like terrorism, crime, etc.

any thoughts on all this?