(I got this idea from Paul_Partisan's post here and wanted to expand on it.)



Why are churches tax-exempt?

The First Amendment prohibits the government from "respecting an establishment of religion." Our government does exactly that by granting exemption to churches - religious institutions - but discriminating against nonreligious ones. This violates the separation of church and state.

Requiring churches to pay taxes like every other institution would not violate anyone's freedom of religion. Churches would still be free to conduct their "business." Churchgoers would still be free to practice whatever faith they choose.

I do think a church should be able to petition for a tax-exempt status if it can prove it is giving back to the community like other charities.

What do you think?

This is a career fact sheet I wrote for my Technical Writing course. Feel free to read and comment!

THE WRITING AND EDITING INDUSTRY TODAY

Careers in Writing and Editing

The two major careers in the writing and editing industry are writers and editors. Writers produce a variety of original written materials for books, magazines, journals, online publications, company newsletters, radio and television, movies, and advertisements. The three major types of writers are copy writers, technical writers, and freelance writers.

• Copy writers write materials to promote the sale of a good or service and may contribute to its marketing.

• Technical writers provide information in an easy-to-read format, such as manuals, catalogs, instructions, and project proposals.

• Freelance writers sell their work, make contracts, or are hired by publishers, enterprises, manufacturing firms, public relations departments, or advertising agencies. Most are self-employed and paid per assignment.

Editors evaluate proposed story ideas, decide whether or not to buy publication rights, plan, review and edit drafts of written works; give their clients constructive criticism on how to improve their work, and supervise the production of publications. Editors also hire entry-level assistants (copy editors) to review copy for grammatical errors, check for readability, style, and agreement with editorial policy; suggest revisions, carry out research, and verify facts, dates, and statistics.

Educational Requirements

A career in writing or editing often requires a college degree. Employers prefer to hire individuals with degrees in communications, journalism, or English, as well as those with a broad liberal arts background.

Other requirements include:

• The ability to express information in a clear and logical method
• A passion for writing/edition
• Creativity, curiosity, and self-motivation.
• Tact and leadership

Experience

The writing and editing industry is highly competitive because it attracts many people. Most employers require basic technical knowledge, and writers and editors who publish their work online must have basic knowledge about graphic design and multimedia software. Online publications and services are becoming more popular, increasing the demand for writers and editors with technical experience.

Opportunities for Advancement

In small firms, opportunities for advancement and full-time work can be limited because small firms often lack regular work or cannot afford to employ writers full-time. However, entry-level employees may begin writing or editing material immediately. In larger firms, however, they conduct research, verify articles, or copy edit drafts. Advancement is more predictable but occurs more slowly than in smaller firms.

Projected Job Growth

The writing and editing industry is expected to grow 10 percent from 2006 to 2016, the average for all occupations. The rapid growth and change in scientific and technological industries is expected to increase the demand for technical writers and writers with expertise in law, medicine, or economics. Experienced workers who transfer jobs or retire are also expected to increase job openings.

The median annual earnings in May 2008 were:

• $57,180 for salaried editors
• $64,210 for salaried technical writers
• $64,560 for salaried writers and authors

The National Employment Matrix predicts:

• A 20 percent job increase for technical writers
• A 13 percent job increase for writers and authors
• A two percent job increase for editors

The "Big Picture"

The writing and editing industry contributes to the economy by providing a variety of specialized jobs in a stable and growing industry that offer a significant source of income. The industry contributes to society because it interests readers, attracts customers, and informs the public. Employers need a variety of skilled employees to meet their needs, and society needs writers and editors who can successfully communicate complex information to them.

Many employees in other industries often rely on the writing and editing industry to perform well in their jobs and at home. Some people need the products and services of the industry just to stay alive. Disabled individuals rely on the expertise of nurses, who must be able to read and understand instructions on how to best assist their patients. More directly, a homeowner trying to put out a fire must be able to read and understand the instructions on his fire extinguisher or risk losing his house and even his life.










SOURCES:

“Writers and Editors.” 18 December 2007. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 6 September 2009.

“U.S. Census Press Releases.” 1 September 2009. U.S. Census Bureau. 6 September 2009.

Since I'll be busy with my last college semester, have a list of quotes that inspire me:

GOVERNMENT

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." --Thomas Jefferson

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." --Thomas Jefferson

"Democracy is two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb." --Benjamin Franklin

"A government of laws, and not of men." --John Adams

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." --Thomas Jefferson

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." --Thomas Jefferson

"No government ought to be without censors; and where the press is free no one ever will." --Thomas Jefferson

"That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves." --Thomas Jefferson

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government." --Thomas Jefferson

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." --Thomas Jefferson

"The measure of a man is what he does with power." --Plato

KNOWLEDGE

"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." --Thomas Jefferson

"I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led." --Thomas Jefferson

"Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies." --Friedrich Nietzsche

"Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil." --Plato

LAW

"It is more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law than that he should escape." --Thomas Jefferson

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson

"No law or ordinance is mightier than understanding." --Plato

FOREIGN POLICY

"Peace, commerse and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." --Thomas Jefferson

WAR

"War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong, and multiplies instead of indemnifying losses." --Thomas Jefferson

LIBERTY

"We are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a featherbed." --Thomas Jefferson

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." --Thomas Jefferson

ART

"We have art in order not to die of the truth." --Friedrich Nietzsche

LIFE

"Experience, as a desire for experience, does not come off. We must not study ourselves while having an experience." --Friedrich Nietzsche

"Let us beware of saying that death is the opposite of life. The living being is only a species of the dead, and a very rare species." --Friedrich Nietzsche

RELIGION

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." --Arthur C. Clark

"The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike." --Soup to Nutz cartoon

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." --Steven Roberts

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." --Gene Roddenberry

"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish."

"Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people." --Carlespie Mary Alice McKinney

"Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain and presumptuous desire for a second one." --Richard Dawkins

"The Government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion." --John Adams, 2nd President of the United States

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" --Epicurus

LOVE

"It is not a lack of love, but a lack of friendship that makes unhappy marriages." --Friedrich Nietzsche

"One ought to hold on to one's heart; for if one lets it go, one soon loses control of the head too." --Friedrich Nietzsche

"There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness." --Friedrich Nietzsche

SUCCESS

"Many are stubborn in pursuit of the path they have chosen, few in pursuit of the goal." --Friedrich Nietzsche

"This is the hardest of all: to close the open hand out of love, and keep modest as a giver." --Friedrich Nietzsche

"To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering." --Friedrich Nietzsche

FRIENDS

"People who have given us their complete confidence believe that they have a right to ours. The inference is false, a gift confers no rights." --Friedrich Nietzsche

 

Got any quotes to add?

H.L. Mencken claimed that there is a “simple, elegant, and wrong" solution for every problem (Tanner "Universal Healthcare..."). Today that solution appears to be providing universal health care in the United States. America’s current health care system does have a problem that increases costs and lowers quality, but the problem is not what most people think it is, and universal health care could harm most Americans rather than help.

UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

According to a 2005 Harris Poll, 75% of Americans want universal health care (“Heath Care…”). The concept sounds appealing: Everyone gets health care, perhaps even for free, so they can stay out of hospitals and contribute in the workforce. But theory is not reality. As seen in other nations with universal health care, universal coverage does not guarantee "actual access to medical care" (Tanner "Universal Healthcare...").

In the United States, the supply of medical resources for health care is already strained. Fewer than 2% of all medical students are choosing to specialize in primary care medicine, which manages 80% of all health care needs. In addition, a large number of physicians are scheduled to retire within the next five years ("Primary care shortage..."). Introduce the demand of universal health care to this diminishing supply of medically trained professionals and it is easy to envision mass shortages of every medical resource.

How does universal health care increase demand? According to the law of supply and demand, lowering prices increases demand. The demand for a free product is astronomical: customers will swamp any store that offers free donuts, coffee, movies, etc., even if they do not need it. Customers have incentives to grab a product that they would normally have to invest their resources to get. After all, they can usually turn around and either sell it or exchange it for another product or service. They lose nothing and make a profit.

The supply and demand for health care is no different. Supply is limited by the availability of medical resources, the technology to convert them into medical products, and skilled professionals to administer care ("Universal Healthcare..."). Offering free health care causes consumer demand to skyrocket far beyond the available resources, as described below. And when an industry faces more demand than it can supply, it faces shortages.

Nations such as Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, Sweden, and Japan all have some form of universal health care, and they already experience shortages of medical resources. In general, hospitals in these nations are overcrowded and have neither available beds nor enough doctors to meet the need (Stossel "Sick in America..."). In Britain, nearly 900,000 citizens await admission to hospitals, and shortages of medical supplies and available doctors cause the cancellations of over 50,000 surgeries per year (Tanner "Universal Healthcare..."). Heart surgery wait lists times in Sweden can be longer than six months (Tanner "Universal Healthcare...").

Experts point out that systems such as Switzerland's lack incentives for providers and patients alike to "seek out efficient, high value care" ("Universal Problems..."). Patients have no incentive to seek out better prices because they are not paying with their own money. Providers have no incentive to improve their performance because they have no positive reinforcement or reward; governments hold down health care costs by paying providers less (Stossel "Sick in America...").

America has more incentives than other countries, which lead to better health care. Lower income Americans are actually in better health than Canadians of comparable income, and Americans in general wait half as long as Canadian and British patients do for health care ("10 Surprising Facts..."). In addition, Americans have much better access to newer, better technologies than do Canadians or Britons. For example, the United States has 34 CT scanners per million Americans whereas Canada has 12 and Britain has only eight. The United States also has 27 MRI machines per million Americans compared to six each in Canada and Britain ("10 Surprising Facts...").

Americans often have easier access to cutting edge technologies because Americans have invented, and continue to invent, the majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all hospitals in any other industrialized country combined ("Franklin Delano Obama"). In addition, American researchers have won the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology more often than researchers from all other countries combined ("Winners of the Nobel...").

One reason for the low quality of universal health care is because governments must keep costs down by not investing in better care. One British hospital told its employees to simply turn over dirty sheets instead of changing them every day (Stossel "Sick in America..."). The Canadian Adverse Events Study reports that "adverse events” in Canadian hospitals result in 9,000- 24,000 deaths every year ("Universal Problems..."). Nonlethal events keep Canadians in hospitals for a total of over a million extra days per year ("Universal Problems...").

Another reason for the poor quality of medical services in universal health care is the unavoidable rationing of the depleted supply of medical resources. England’s medical rationing is considered to be the “most aggressive… known to the free world” because it delays care to patients unless – or until – they are critically ill ("Obama's Health Care..."). Americans have better access to cancer screening than do Canadians ("Health Status...") and better access to treatment for chronic diseases than do patients in other developed countries ("The Grass Is Not Always Greener...").

What about countries where health care providers “operate as private businesses” (“Heath Care…”) and the government just pays the bills? In those countries the health care is better than it is under government-monopolized health care, but the government is paying all of the medical costs for everyone. It still offers no incentive for the insured customer to shop for better deals and no incentive for health care providers to compete for customers by lowering prices or improving their services. Those countries suffer the same problem as does the medical insurance industry in general, but I discuss that below.

In addition to negative aspects such as shortages and poor quality of medical resources, universal health care costs a fortune. France’s health care system, for example, reported a $15 billion deficit in 2004 ("Universal Problems..."). To cover the cost of universal health care, many nations maintain “sky-high taxes” ("Obama's Health Care..."). In 2007, America's average personal tax rate was 28.3 percent of the GDP compared to Canada's 33.3 percent, Germany's 36.2 percent, England's 36.6 percent, and France's 43.6 percent. Japan's tax rate equals that of the United States, but its debt last year was 170 percent of its GDP, three times more than that of the United States ("Obama's Health Care...").

How bad is universal health care? Citizens from nations with universal health care, including citizens from Spain, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and even people such as the Archbishop Desmond Tutu and prime ministers from Italy, actually come to the United States to get health care (Stossel "Sick in America..."). The less fortunate are forced to simply watch as even minor medical problems become life-threatening while they await care; some people die in the queue ("Obama's Health Care..."). Citizens even resort to performing procedures themselves; for example, citizens in Britain have been known to pull their own teeth using pliers and vodka (Stossel "Sick in America...").

Why is universal health care so expensive? In many nations, the government monopolizes health care, and provision of private health care is illegal. Because monopolies have no competition, they do not have to cater to consumer demand. Such governments can afford to waste the taxpayers' money because the taxpayers have no legal alternative.

But now more and more Canadians are going to private, for-profit clinics, even though they are illegal in Canada (Stossel "Sick in America..."). Canadian doctors face such a demand for quality health care that a new clinic emerges every week; even the President of the Canadian Medical Association has opened one (Stossel "Sick in America...").

But how do private companies provide better quality care than the government does?

PRIVATE,  FOR-PROFIT COMPANIES

One reason why two-thirds of Americans want universal health care is because they want to avoid the stigma of “greed.” Most people scorn privatized health care because it "profits from sick people."

But what about other industries that profit from misfortune? What about funeral homes that profit from dead people and their families? What about military suppliers that profit from the spoils of war and instruments of death? Although unpleasant, we need funeral homes to dispose of the dead and military suppliers to provide a means of defense. The only way that these service industries can survive without the government monopolizing them is through private, for-profit companies.

In the movie Wall Street, Gordon Gecko claims that “greed, for lack of a better word, is good.” Gecko was right to say “for lack of a better word” because the word “greed” has a negative connotation. It means "an excessive, extreme desire for something, often more than one's proper share…" ("Greed definition"). When one takes more than his or her proper share, one also takes part of another person’s share. This is theft, which means that greedy individuals harm others.

Had Gecko’s actions been legal, he could have used the word “ambition,” which has a neutral or even positive connotation. It means an "eager or strong desire to achieve something" ("Ambition definition"). Ambition benefits us because on the other end of the challenge is a reward. Rewards, like a monetary prize at the end of a race, give us incentives to perform our best. Ambition, unlike greed, tends to help instead of hurt because we only reap what we sow. In working toward our goal, we also produce services or goods that others want.

Ambition fuels innovation. Henry Ford did not cut the cost of the automobile by half within eight years out of love but because he wanted to make a profit from selling them (Stossel "Sick in America..."). He became one of the richest people in the world because he created a product that people willingly paid to own. In capitalism, the only legal way for an individual to make a profit is to help others profit. It is a win-win concept.

This kind of motivation produces the best in everything. Take medicine, for example. The government is responsible for four percent of the drugs on the market today (Stossel "Sick in America..."). The other 96 percent of such drugs have been produced by for-profit companies, which perform better than the government because success rewards them and gives them an incentive to work hard, whereas government workers lack such incentives.

For-profit companies meet customer demand more than do nonprofit companies. For example, Jeff Ellis runs a for-profit lifeguard training program at Jeff Ellis & Associates, Inc. After training lifeguards, he surprises graduates with unscheduled drills and even films their performance secretly to test their commitment level. If he catches any lifeguard not doing his or her job, he fires them. Ellis’s for-profit company competes with Red Cross, which provides nonprofit training. Because Red Cross does not routinely test the performance of its graduates, the lifeguards it trains have no incentive to perform well at all times.

Ellis has caught Red Cross graduates on camera leaving their chairs to talk to women, cook hamburgers, or even lounge in the sun (Stossel "Sick in America..."). The lifeguards trained by Mr. Ellis, however, remain vigilant and in their chairs at all times. They know that their performance matters and that they will lose their jobs if they do not meet expectations. In the end, lifeguards trained by the private, for-profit company outperform those trained by the nonprofit company because the former have more incentive to perform well than do the latter. As a result, eighty percent of all water parks in the United States are clients of Jeff Ellis & Associates, Inc., a for-profit company ("About Us").

For-profit businesses outperform nonprofit businesses because they compete with each other and/or similar businesses. When people pay out of their own pockets, they are more likely to watch what they spend than when someone else foots the bill. Private businesses must invest their own money, unlike the government or nonprofit programs. To attract customers, private businesses must compete with one another by catering to consumer demand. They do this by producing better quality services than do their rivals. These high-quality services benefit their customers, who return the favor by paying the company. These benefits arise from the so-called “greed” for profit.

Lasik eye surgery is considered to be cosmetic by health insurance companies, and they will not cover the surgery. Customers must pay out of their own pockets, so they have an incentive to shop for the best deals. Providers have to compete for business, so they must offer cheaper or better services than do their rivals. Since Lasik surgery became cosmetic and companies had to compete for business, Lasik surgery prices have dropped 30% and the quality of the product has improved greatly (Stossel "Sick in America...").

How about a health care example? One doctor named Robert Barry refuses to accept payment for his medical service from health insurance companies. He saves time and money by doing so because he does not have to fill out paperwork or pay extra employees to do it (Stossel "Sick in America..."). Instead, he can invest that time and money in his company, improve services, and increase employee wages. With the money he saves, Barry can afford to provide better service than do his rivals. He profits, and so do his customers.

Critics claim that forcing customers to pay for medical costs themselves will give them an incentive to avoid getting needed medical care. But studies show that individual is the best judge of his or her needs. People with high deductibles take better care of themselves than those with low deductibles (Stossel "Sick in America..."). They must pay more before their insurance covers them, so they make sure that they spend their money on the best deals.

Government monopolies have no competition, so they do not need to cater to their customers. This lack of incentive to improve is why the government produces poor quality programs and services and why the private market excels.

But we have private, for-profit health care companies in the United States… so why do we have health care problems?

HEALTH INSURANCE

Health insurance might be the biggest problem with America’s health care. In addition to currently being an oligopoly, health insurance in general restricts worker flexibility, hinders businesses, fails to produce high-quality results, and encourages wasteful spending.

Health insurance companies have formed an “oligopoly,” a small number of suppliers that can control prices in their market(s). According to the American Antitrust Institute, four health insurance companies dominate the market and have acquired monopolies "in dozens of markets" ("In Greater..."). A 2008 survey by the American Medical Association found that 94 percent of the nation’s metropolitan areas “meet the federal antitrust definition of being highly concentrated” despite having over 1,000 private health insurers. One insurer controlled “at least half the market in 44 percent of the areas” ("In Greater..."). The health insurance is being consolidated by a few companies, reducing competition.

Dr. J. James Rohack, president of the American Medical Association, states that "as insurers have grown more concentrated, they've earned record profits, even while the number of uninsured Americans has increased because they can't afford premiums" ("In Greater..."). The poor can't afford health care because insurance providers have a chokehold on the industry and prevent competition from lowering prices.

A public option would force these companies to compete, but it too faces problems. If the government funds the public option through taxes, it would be investing the taxpayer’s money instead of its own. This “unfair competitive advantage” would bankrupt private insurers that must invest their own money and result in “a government takeover of health care and fewer choices for patients” ("In Greater..."). If the public option tries to compete long-term, it will most likely fail without funding through taxes because of the lack of incentives explained earlier.

Instead, the United States needs to conduct a thorough investigation into the health insurance industry for signs of anticompetitive practices and take legal action accordingly. The American Medical Association asserts that the Justice Department has only challenged three of the 400+ mergers of health insurers and managed-care organizations in the past 12 years ("In Greater..."). Meanwhile, profits at 10 of the nation's largest health insurance companies have risen 428 percent from 2000 to 2007 – coincidentally during a certain president's disastrous reign ("New Report: Private...").

Aside from monopolies, the health insurance industry restricts worker flexibility. How easily can you switch jobs if your insurance is tied to your current employer and you have a need for medical insurance? That need ties you to your job, and if you lose your job then you also lose your health insurance. Considering that four out of 10 Americans change jobs every year, that is 40% of Americans who risk losing their health insurance (Stossel "Sick in America..."). In addition, more than half of the employers who offer health insurance do not let their employees choose among various health plans, so the employees cannot stimulate competition ("Why Tie Health Insurance to a Job?").

Health insurance also hurts companies by adding to their cost of operating. GM spent more money on health insurance for its employees than it did on purchasing steel, a factor that led to GM’s downfall (Stossel "Sick in America..."). In fact, employer-based health insurance costs companies more than $75 billion every year in marketing, sales, billing, and other administrative costs ("Why Tie Health Insurance to a Job?").

Workers unions often pressure employers to “take care” of their employees by offering health insurance, but their well-intended requirement backfires. Providing health insurance adds to the employer’s costs, and the employer must offset these costs by either hiring fewer employees, reducing wages, or charging more for the company’s products. If employers left the responsibility for health insurance up to the employee, they would not have to resort to these measures.

Like universal health care generally seems to be, health insurance has proven to be mostly inefficient in providing better health. Several studies have found “no causal relationship" between insurance and health; one study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that an individual’s insurance status was "largely unrelated to the quality of care" (Tanner "Universal Healthcare...").

Health insurance uses a method than can be called collective redistribution. When an insured customer becomes sick, the health insurance company can 1) drop them, 2) charge them more according to their estimated cost increase, 3) increase premiums for all customers, or 4) earn lower profits. Most companies choose the third method; the more sick patients they cover, the higher the costs become for everyone (Stossel "Sick in America...").

But does the increasing cost of American health care result from caring for the uninsured? According to the Urban Institute, uncompensated care for uninsured patients costs less than 3% of our total healthcare spending (Tanner "Universal Healthcare..."). So it is not necessarily the uncompensated care of the uninsured that makes health care so expensive for the rest of us… could it be the 250 million that are insured (Stossel "Sick in America...")? As stated before, health care costs rise when health care providers have no incentive to lower their prices in order to compete with other companies. Providers have no need to compete when their patients are insured, because customers have no incentive to seek better prices if their insurance company pays for them.

Health insurance companies discriminate against individuals. They give tax breaks, lower deductibles, and lower general costs to employers, but charge individuals up to 10 percent of their income ("New report..."). This makes it harder for the individual to afford a plan that fits their needs without restricting that individual to their current job.

The U.S. government is also causing the rise in health care costs. The government will not cover expenses for certain methods that health care providers use, even efficient ones like using electronic medical records (Stossel "Sick in America..."). Health care providers must either pay for these electronic records themselves or, more often, invest their space, time, and money in filing cabinets and folders. The cost of these resources could be saved by the use of electronic medical records, but the government refuses to cover the expenses and doctors refuse to pay for electronic methods out of their own pockets.

Health insurance also gives its insured customers incentives to spend more. Insured patients often request procedures they do not need just because their insurance company covers them (Stossel "Sick in America..."). Insured patients also tend not to pay attention to prices because they are spending someone else's money. When customers do not search for the best deals, doctors have no need to worry about coaxing them through the door with competitive prices.

In summary, most forms of universal health care drain the supply of medical resources, cause excessive demand, and produce both poor quality of health care and shortages of medical resources. The popular contempt for private, for-profit companies is baseless because they perform a needed service better do than the government and nonprofit organizations. Competition improves the quality of products and services, and the lack of competition in government-run industries negatively impacts both quality and prices. Health insurance often ties employees to their current jobs, increases costs and lowers productivity for the employers themselves, fails to produce high-quality results, and gives their customers an incentive to spend more.

I hope this helps you better understand the causes of America’s health care situation and the possible consequences of the proposed solutions.

 

 

 

 

WORK CITED

1. 2009. County of Fresno. 1 Aug 2009. <http://www.co.fresno.ca.us/uploadedImages/Departments/Personnel_Services/Employee_Benefits/Leaves_of_Absence_Info/paperwork.jpg>
2. 2009. Cuba FPA Home. 1 Aug 2009. <http://cuba.foreignpolicyblogs.com/files/2009/06/health-care-toon.jpg>
3. 2009. WordPress.com. 1 Aug 2009. <http://firstfriday.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/socialized-medicine.gif>
4. 2009. WordPress.com. 1 Aug 2009. <http://frugalyankee.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/greed_trust2.jpg>
5. 1 Aug 2009. Catholica. 1 Aug 2009. <http://www.catholica.com.au/cliffstake/images/HealthCareQuestion_300x320.jpg>
6. 1 Aug 2009. OneWorld.net. 1 Aug 2009.  <http://us.oneworld.net/files/images/San%20Francisco%20Rally%20for%20Universal%20Health%20Care%20(Steve%20Rhodes).jpg>
7. "About Us." 18 August 2004. Jeff Ellis & Associates, Inc.<http://www.jellis.com/about-us.html>
8. "Ambition definition." 2009. Dictionary.com 23 July 2009. <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ambition>
9. Anderson, Matthew. "Universal Healthcare: Easier Said Than Done." 16 Feb 2008. Whitehouser.com. 22 July 2009. <http://whitehouser.com/policy/domestic/healthcare-limited-supply-unlimited-demand/>
10. Atlas, Scott. "10 Surprising Facts About American Health Care." 24 March 2009. National Center for Policy Analysis. 26 July 2009. <http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649>
11. Brayer, Toni J. "Primary care shortage dooms universal health care." 30 Oct 2008. ACP Internist. 22 July 2009. <http://blogs.acponline.org/acpinternist/2008/10/primary-care-shortage-dooms-universal.html>
12. Consumer Federation of California. 1 Aug 2009. <http://www.consumercal.org/img/original/cost%20of%20care.jpg>
13. Dalmia, Shikha. "Obama's Health Care Quackery: Countries with universal health care are economically worse off than the U.S." 7 May 2009. Reason Magazine. 23 July 2009. <http://www.reason.com/news/show/133344.html>
14. DiPiero, Albert. "Universal Problems & Universal Healthcare: 6 Countries - 6 Systems." Fall 2004. Willamette University. 23 July 2009. <http://www.willamette.edu/centers/publicpolicy/projects/oregonsfuture/PDFvol5no2/countries_healthcare.pdf>
15. Emanual, Ezekial J., and Ron Wyden. "Why Tie Health Insurance to a Job?" 10 Dec 2008. The Wall Street Journal. 21 July 2009. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122887085038593345.html>
16. "Greed definition." 2009. Dictionary.com 23 July 2009. <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/greed>
17. John Stossell. "Greed." Spring 1999. 20/20. 24 July 2009. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0VHiONkot8>
18. John Stossell. "Sick in America: Whose Body Is It Anyway?" Fall 2007. 20/20. 24 July 2009. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I>
19. Kristof, Nicholas D. "Franklin Delano Obama." 28 February 2009. The New York Times. 26 July 2009. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/opinion/01Kristof.html?_r=1>
20. Mahon, Mary. "New report: Individual health insurance market failing consumers." 21 July 2009. The Commonwealth Fund. 21 July 3009. <http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-07/cf-nri072009.php>
21. O.Neill, June, and Dave M. "Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S."
22. Pibel, Doug, and Sarah van Gelder. “Health Care: It’s What Ails Us.” 19 July 2006. YES! 24 July 2009. <http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/health-care-for-all/1498>
23. Tanner, Michael. "The Grass Is Not Always Greener: A Look at National Health Care Systems Around the World." 18 March 2008. The Cato Institute. 26 July 2009. <http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9272>
24. Tanner, Michael, and Michael Cannon. "Universal health care's dirty little secrets." 5 April 2007. Los Angeles Times. 23 July 2009. <http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-tanner5apr05,0,2227144.story>
25. "Winners of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine." 2008. The Nobel Prize Internet Archive. 26 July 2009. <http://almaz.com/nobel/medicine/medicine.html>

Groppe, Maureen. "In Greater Cincinati, Little Competition Among Health Insurers." 8 August 2009. The Enquirer. 30 September 2009.
"New Report: Private Insurance Mergers Lead to Near-Monopolies Across the Country." 2009. Health Care for America Now. 8 September 2009. http://healthcareforamericanow.org/site/content/new_report_private_insurers_consolidate_and_control_prices

OH MY GOD, OBAMA KILLED A FLY! He's so cruel! Murderer!

... um, mousetraps anyone? Ant poison? Slaughterhouses? Puppy mills?