I disagree. I think it will turn off the people who only have $$$ in their eyes and aren't truly concerned with helping people. I also think it will also go a ways towards helping a serious problem that the medical field has now, where most students go towards a high paying specialty instead of GP. There are too many dermatologists and not enough GP doctors.

What is a normal starting salary for a young medical doctor in the US? After 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? What type of income tax level would they pay, 20-30%?

I see a paradox in todays US, as far as education goes. Two revolutionary countrys - France and the US, historically had a great advantage since they awarded talent rather than nobility. Having a smart guy as major in the army was better than having a 19 year old son of a nobleman. Having anyone beeing able to buy land and work smart and hard to make a living made a more efficient economy than the feudal parts of Europe (Sweden included).

If you look at it today though, the situation seems opposite. Getting accepted to the best medical school in Sweden takes good grades. Since kids with poor parents from bad neighborhood for the most part (not always though) end up in decent high schools they have a great chance to beat well off kids from posh neighborhoods through grades. Working hard and being talented beats cash. One could claim this is the type of meritocracy that once made US very competetive and strong? The question is where US will en up in 30-50 years time as far as competetiveness goes. As american, I would be worried.

You'd probably change your mind if you read up on the kind of generals we had in the Union Army at the start of the Civil War.

I think that the more serious problem the medical field has now (in the US) revolves around malpractice lawsuit/insurance issues. How is malpractice handled in Sweden, France, and Canada?

If US waste 4-6% of GDP through a troublesom financing of healthcare it seems another couple of percentage points is wasted through unnecessary process in the legal system.

The possibiluty to sue people for money for beeing mistreated in some way in Sweden is slim, and therefore there is no such tradition. If you are victim of a crime you report it to the police and the perpetrator (after trial) get a fine or is jailed. There is no difference in beeing hit (by car) by a millionaire or a bum. None - what so ever. I would say >95% of swedes have never in their lifes even once thought about the risk of beeing sued. If you do sue (most common I think is about interpreting contracts about business, land, real estate or work) the looser pay costs of the process (risky!) and the winner get a "reasonable" compensation. I would say settlements without trial (cheap and not risky) is common. That said, I know I have "legal cover" in my home insurance. If sued my insuranse pay costs up to a certain level ($50.000-100.000 i think). The total home insuranse is about $20 a month for a 900 sq feet rental.

Generally it would seem to me nordic people have a great understanding for "the accident" as a phenomenon. Shit happens and it is seldom conceivably or reasonable to start a legal process.

There is different levels of evil even in hell?

This new law will cost jobs.

----x-----x----

Example: Take a small business (backbone of America) called Company X (made up name) for example. Every small business with more than 50 people will be forced to offer each employee health insurance or pay a $750 tax per employee to the IRS. This means a small company of about 70 people would be fined $52,250.00 if the employer did not provide health insurance to all of its employees. The owner, Mr. X, would have to spend added money towards this tax and would not be able to invest the $52,250.00 into the business or hiring new employees. Let’s say that I’m a potential candidate for Company X and that new employees start out making around $50,000.00 a year.

My potential job disappears with this new law.

Multiply this effect by how many small businesses in America? 700,000? 1.3 million? By the way here’s the catch: The penalties cost less than the insurance.

----x-----x----

It is impossible for this law to make healthcare both more secure and affordable. Insurance costs will increase and therefore premiums will increase. Now there will be “offered” an “array” expensive, mediocre health insurance plans.

It is my opinion that centrally planned bureaucracy kills innovation, increases costs, and undercuts personal liberty. Sure people will get to keep their policies they currently have. But what if those policies cease to be available as many of the health care providers leave the business/industry because Obamacare made it a bad business?

Under this law women will not be charged more just because they are women. I love my Wife, my Sisters, my Mother, and Grandmother’s. But it is simple fact that women visit doctors more than men. To say that women will not be charged more makes no sense. Women consume more healthcare services. People who incur higher costs pay higher insurance rates or insurance doesn't work.

I hear Canadians get "free" healthcare, and they have the privilege of waiting 23 hours to see someone at the ER, as opposed to the 4 hours Americans have to endure.

Just had to post a quote from todays "Dagens Industri" (business paper of Sweden), about a quite relax atmosphere in Sweden:
- Ingvar Carlsson, prime minister of Sweden 1986-1991.

I have actually met him, and other former and present leading politicians, on the subway in Stockholm. I agree, that is really nice - and rare.

I don't know what others pay, and I'm not sure I understand the stats Northern Light puts up as far as tax as a % of GDP. Is that personal tax? Income tax? Corporate tax? Sale Tax? FICA? Just employee's FICA share? Or the entire FICA? 45% seems low. I'm not sure the numbers being compared are equal.

I've always found it to be a good deal of the amount of services I receive vs the amount of tax I pay. Sure, I bitch about taxes as much as the next guy/gal. But half of us pay very little taxes! And the half that does, it is far from 45%. Evidence, people bragging about all the credits they take on their taxes just recently, right here.

Regardless, I've never once thought about moving to Sweeden or Europe solely b/c of the social programs. Nor Canada for that matter. Everytime I'm in thailand, I come across mainly saavy canadians who have figured out have "procedures" done, plus the cost of travel plus spending money is less than having it done in the great white north. And I'm not talking about the kind of work you'd find on Soi Nana. Just simple oral surgery and the like.

Total tax (and public fees) at any level in relation to GDP. Here is a list, seems a couple of years old though, since Sweden has gone down and US up: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_t ... -as-of-gdp

I'm sure there are some Europeans who come to the US but there are also many "Americans" who go to Europe. Politics aside, the quality of care in most European countries is at least as good as in the US. There are valid points to be made on both sides regarding how care should be paid for but no one can credibly argue that the care overall is better in either the US or Europe. Some hospitals etc are better or worse but the continent they are on makes little difference.

I see nobody wanted to tackle this post. Ah well

Last weeks The Economist sum up helath care spending 2010; public and private. At 17-18% of GPD US spends far more than second place France at about 11-12%.

The most interesting is that the public spending on health care in the US adds up to 9% of GPD. Note: before Obamacare. That is pretty much what the average OECD country spend on health care in total, and US has a higher GDP per person than the average OECD country.

If countrys with 80-90% of the US GPD per person can finance good universal health care with 9-10% of GDP, it is not controversial to assume the US could do the same with 9% (the US public spending of today), organized in a different way. That would save the US economy the equivalent of almost 9% of GDP, or about $ 4.300 for every living american - every year. Yes, that is $17.200 a year for a family of four. I imagine most americans could find good use for that money.

Are americans so anal about individual insuranse that they are willing to pay thousands of dollars extra in taxes and insuranse premiums every year for no good reason? As an economist and historian I would easy vote for US health care spending as the biggest waste of resources in the history of mankind - and the two rivaling political agendas regarding it is status quo on one side and raising cost even more on the other. "Madness" is the only word I can come up with to describe it.

Eagle, you've apparently drunk the koolaid. Almost everything you said is based on incorrect or incomplete information proliferated by one side of the political debate.

Canadians don't wait 23 hours in emergencies and Americans don't wait 4. SOME do. But in either country no one waits longer than they need to. If your tummy hurts you don't want to wait. But it's better to make you wait if the alternative is to give you some pepto while the guy with arterial bleeding bleeds out in the waiting room. The cleanup costs alone make this true. Besides, in the US each private hospital determines its staffing levels. If they overstaff so that everyone with a tummy ache gets treated quickly then that is wasteful and costs us all.

Women visit doctors more. Men drink more beer. Men also incur more trauma. So what? We are all people. Splitting hairs is stupid. If we want to go down that route then we should certainly charge certain groups more and I don't think you'd like where that goes.

This law will not kill jobs. The very same arguments were made against civil rights laws and even women's suffrage. These are social issues that the economic system will adjust around. The cost of airport security and the wars in the middle east have had far greater impact than this law will.

I am not in favor of or opposed to the law being discussed. It has its good points and bad points. But it is here to stay now and there simply is no way it will be overturned by Congress in the near future. Every member of congress is standing for re-election. Support for this law is almost evenly split. Any politician that leans in one direction will lose a vote for every one he gains. Plus, there are millions of voters who benefit from this because they get health care. Those who will pay more have to think about whether the extra $100 they might pay a year is worth crying about when it allows their fellow citizens to get treated.

So, the republican party might try to make it an issue but I doubt it. Their best hope would be to wait until after the election and hope they have a substantial majority as well as the presidency and I think that is highly doubtful, especially since they will have a very short period before having to run again. So, it's time to move on and stop fighting the battle from 2 years ago.

Besides, I thought you were a christian? Isn't there something in that book you read about helping those less fortunate?

I chose not to due to the absurdity of the original example, changing from a 50 person company to a 70 person company just to generate a $ figure big enough to be more than the wage someone would earn if they worked at the 50 person company. It was almost strawman in it's design.