There has been a lot of discussion since Athens about foreign swimmers training in the United States. Most of them attend U.S. Universities, receive athletic scholarships, and compete at NCAA's. Some notable examples include Duje Draganja (Cal), Fred Bousquet and Kirsty Coventry (Auburn), Markus Rogan (Stanford), and the South African sprinters (Arizona). Some train in the U.S., but don't compete for a university (Inge de Bruijn). All of these athletes benefit from U.S. coaching, from training with U.S. swimmers, and in some cases, from financial support provided by U.S. entities (athletic scholarships). They all turn around and then win medals for other countries.
A couple questions: 1) What do you think about this arrangement generally? 2) Is it of benefit or detriment to U.S. swimming to have these foreign athletes training and competing here? 3) Should we be giving athletic scholarships, which are a scarce resource in swimming, to foreign athletes who will represent their own countries internationally instead of U.S.-born swimmers who will represent us internationally?
I'm sure there are other issues, but these come directly to mind.
Originally posted by gull80
Why should health care be free?
Health care should be paid for with public money because it is a public good--like roads, and far more essential. It should also be paid for with public money because putting for-profit companies in charge of goods that are essential leads to public extortion (see the manufactured California electricity "shortage"). Further, it is cheaper, in the long run, to encourage people to get preventive care than to force them to wait until something is so acute that they must go to the emergeny room. As a doctor, you should know that.
And it isn't only the indigent who are screwed. In fact, it is the lower middle class who are caught up most--too wealthy for public subsidy, too poor to afford healthcare on their own, employed by companies that don't offer insurance or charge too much while paying too little, hammered by the hospitals when they do finally show up with a problem: the situation is next to impossible. Not to mention that the inunsured are charged more for hospital services because of the ceilings on what insurance companies are willing to pay. There is a reason that the kids I know give fake names when they finally end up in the hospital, usually for problems that could have been taken care of if they could've afforded a doctor visit.
Originally posted by gull80
Why should health care be free?
Health care should be paid for with public money because it is a public good--like roads, and far more essential. It should also be paid for with public money because putting for-profit companies in charge of goods that are essential leads to public extortion (see the manufactured California electricity "shortage"). Further, it is cheaper, in the long run, to encourage people to get preventive care than to force them to wait until something is so acute that they must go to the emergeny room. As a doctor, you should know that.
And it isn't only the indigent who are screwed. In fact, it is the lower middle class who are caught up most--too wealthy for public subsidy, too poor to afford healthcare on their own, employed by companies that don't offer insurance or charge too much while paying too little, hammered by the hospitals when they do finally show up with a problem: the situation is next to impossible. Not to mention that the inunsured are charged more for hospital services because of the ceilings on what insurance companies are willing to pay. There is a reason that the kids I know give fake names when they finally end up in the hospital, usually for problems that could have been taken care of if they could've afforded a doctor visit.
