[ExI] government corruption

[PJ Manney]

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> Oddly enough, that's exactly what supporters of a public health system say.
>
> "Short-term effects"--the system Stathis and I are used to (which has its
> shortcomings, but not nearly as many as the US robber-baron-oligopoloy
> system) has been doing a good job for, oh,  25 years. Those are *long-term
> effects*. See e.g.

According to Forbes and Foreign Policy, regardless of their varying
criteria, the top five countries all have relatively successful public
health systems:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4025
http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/07/health-world-countries-forbeslife-cx_avd_0408health_slide.html
Note how Forbes tries their damnedest to lay the success purely at the
feet of "cultural lifestyle" -- it's part of the story, but that
doesn't explain things like Iceland's lowest infant mortality rates,
etc.

Men's Health only gave two health systems A's: Australia and the Netherlands:
http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article.do?site=MensHealth&channel=health&category=other.diseases.ailments&conitem=6cf08f17a7074110VgnVCM20000012281eac____

Stathis and Damien speak from experience.  Australia is consistently
at the top of these lists.  Maybe Forbes is right.  It has to be the
beer...  ;-)
{As a sidenote, in New Zealand's public system, where I birthed my
kids, they recommend breastfeeding mothers have an afternoon snack of
a pint of Guinness and a nut butter sandwich.  Apparently, the combo
supplies needed nutrients and takes the edge off the 5 - 7 pm's (baby
parents know what I mean).  Any health system that recommends Guinness
is tops in my books!}

PJ