Worth every penny:
ByConsidering you could get Newsweek for $20 a year, those less informed look at me cross-eyed when I tell them I subscribe to the Economist, which costs $120 a year. Since it could be argued that news is news, when paying 6x more for the same information it better be pretty damn good. For those that get it you know what I’m talking about when I say it is. For those that don’t check out this article in tomorrows edition on President Bush and his goal of spreading Democracy in the Middle East.
Here is a snip it:
“One reason people on the left object to Mr Bush’s “freedom agenda” is that they see it as a veil for something else: an American policy of stomping about the world deposing unfriendly regimes at will. If such a policy existed, it would be wrong. But Mr Bush’s agenda so far consists mainly of using the bully pulpit of superpowerdom to extol democracy’s virtues.”
It's the end of the post, now what?
Bookmark and share to spread the word, we'd really appreciate it:
|
||
|
ReTweet: |
Join our email list: |
Subscribe to our feed: 
|
4 Comments
February 3rd, 2006 at 8:30 am
Economist is good reading. I thought its takedown of the US Healthcare system in last week’s issue was brilliant.
http://tinyurl.com/a6re2
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:15 pm
As far as healthcare, you could actually have a conversation for days on what some of the problems are and I agree that the Economist article last week was “brilliant”. For me the big problem I see with our healthcare system is that it’s not a free market. For instance the medical association that governs medical schools doesn’t allow new medical schools to be built. By doing so it keeps the supply of doctors at a minimum, removing true competition and as a result keeps prices inflated. They fill the shortfall when needed with doctors from overseas. It could be said that if the medical industry allowed the supply of doctors to move freely with demand the prices they charged would drop. To get an appointment with my family doctor for my physical for the year, I had to make it in January for the middle of April, that’s how backed up he is and his prices reflect that demand. If any company had a wait that long, you would have to expect the cost to be inflated. Obviously this isn’t the only solution and some of the other problems is that we have become spoiled with the sophistication of care that we get which has allowed us to live longer, that you don’t get in Europe that adds to our costs. One night my dad had chest pains and because of a prior heart attack new what was coming. We took him to the hospital where they did an emergency quadruple bi-pass in less then 24 hours! If he didn’t get it he would have definitely had a massive heart attack. You don’t get that in Europe. I have a client in India who owns outpatient hospitals where one of there procedures is bi-pass surgery. His biggest customers are people from Europe who come and pay cash for surgery because they don’t wan to wait the weeks it takes in their home country under the nationalized system in fear of dying while waiting.
February 3rd, 2006 at 9:50 pm
Funny you should think the article was brilliant when you are advocating the exact opposite. More of the same. Your own your own. That’s the Republican agenda.
Meghan XX OO
(Who thinks Nick didn’t read the article from begininng to end.)
February 4th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Actually Meghan I did read the whole article which was on pages 24-26 of last weeks edition.
Also within my post I wasn’t advocated anything except that you could discuss the topic endlessly. My comments were what I think some of the additional problems are in addition to what the Economist said.