Wo Grenzen in Europa noch trennen - Versicherungsedition

So, heute habe ich wieder einmal gelernt, dass es zwischen Deutschland und Frankreich, trotz EWG, trotz EU und trotz aller bilateralen Kontrakten, es immer noch einen großen Graben gibt. Es hat wenig mit Politik zu tun (denke ich zumindest) und viel mehr mit Kultur und Faulheit von Firmen.

Große Firmen sind oft behäbig und langsam und dank diverser Hürden werden sie auch vor forscher kleiner Konkurrenz geschützt. Dies zeigt sich besonders auch im Sektor der Versicherungen. Vor kurzem habe ich meiner Freundin dabei geholfen in Deutschland eine KFZ-Versicherung zu finden. Dabei habe ich in Deutschland diverse Versicherungen abgeklappert. Einige, wie die CosmoDirect haben gleich gesagt: Trotz 10 Jahre unfallfreiem Fahren in Frankreich würde eine Einstufung in SF1/2 notwendig sein.
Gelinde gesagt eine Frechheit!

Doch auch auf französischer Seite sind kulturelle Barrieren oder mangelndes Know-How und übertriebene Arroganz Hindernisse. So sieht sich eine multi-nationale Versicherung ausserstande eine englisch übersetzte Bestätigung über die Versicherungsdauer und die Konditionen des Versicherten auszugeben. Nur eine französische Minimalkopie war zu bekommen.
Wie kann es sein, dass 70 Jahre nach dem 2. Weltkrieg immer noch solche hirnverbrannten kleinlichen Hindernisse existieren, als ob NOCH nie jemand von Frankreich nach Deutschland seine Versicherung ändern wollte. Als ob es keine interkulturellen Paare gibt.

Letztlich werden wir wohl jetzt eine hier nicht genannte Versicherung so lange nerven, bis sie die franz. Kopie annehmen, immerhin haben sie nicht kategorisch nein gesagt.

Modern Health Care And An Idea To Improve It

I have been reading this very intersting article, which is not only long, but also detailed and on top of that in a publication that nobody in the world would call "libertarian", but clearly leftist. His diagnosis hits the root of one of the biggest problem in centralized health care with insurance companies. His solutions are to just complicate it even more with regulations and anti-profit laws. None of them will help much, but rather make the problem more complex and a solution less possible.

It is similar to the real estate bubble, where it was only possible to cheat because the whole system was so complex that almost nobody understood it anymore. They knew how it worked superficially and how they could game it to create huge gains, but they didn't understand the risks involved because the fundamentals got lost.

What he proposes is along the same line and thus not a solution in my opinion. But lets just do a small recap, if you didn't read the whole thing. Basically he identifies a dischotomy between the three actors in the health care market: Health Care Facilities (Doctors, Hospitals etc.), Insurance Companies and Patients.
Insurance companies want regulated bulk prices that are not too high, but don't need a lot of micromanagement. The health care facilities want to maximize earnings while the patients want to reduce costs for themselves, while getting high quality care.
Now due to the information mismatch and time constraints of insurance companies, the price lists are compiled like a fashion catalogue and the prices are given by the health care facility. Since the facility has every incentive to arrive at prices that are significantly higher than what is actually a fair price considering demand and supply, they overcharge patients, while insurance companies don't complain. They will complain even less under Obama, because they basically have an unlimited insurer base that won't much change anymore. The result are hospitals that grow rich and insurers that limit care, while the consumer has no say in it whatsoever. If you go to Europe, it goes so far that he doesn't even have a clue about prices (except in the rare cases of dental care, plastic surgery and eye laser surgery, which are mostly PRIVATELY insured cases).

You might wonder what I would change without redoing the whole system. Well, I would reduce it to the one word that is paramount in all of the discussion and yet woefully misunderstood: Insurance.
If you do know what car insurance is, you also know how it usually works. You go to a car repair shop and ask for a price and a diagnosis. You get both, you decide whether to pay for it in cash or per credit card or whether you will submit it to your insurance company.
You do it only in cases of high costs, when you know you can't take on the financial burden (mostly higher than 1000 bucks).
This has many advantages. It protects you from financial disaster, that would ruin your life (as a life-long illness with high running-costs would do). It allows you to shop around and to look for the most trustworthy mechanic (like looking for a doctor and getting different quotes on the prices and recommended procedures). And it would mean prices that are closer to supply and demand and where they are tailored to individuals.
For example, insurance companies' price catalogs usually have set prices for one up to 8 warts removals. Even if you don't need the full 8 removals, you still pay for them. Why does a blood test cost up to 300 $, when the costs of the procedure itself costs about 14 $.

This doesn't mean that prices will drop, but they will most certainly reflect the actual supply and demand market more clearly than the process today does. And it will reduce over-charging by hospitals and doctors. It will remove excess gains and probably get better care to a wider range of people.
This wouldn't even need a repeal of Obamacare, but would be a sensible synopsis you could arrive at after watching the European health care markets.

Does this mean that I endorse Obamacare, certainly not, but if it is there to stay, you could at least learn from the mistakes in Europe. Intelligent Design doesn't have to be a Christian thing.

The US sequester cuts, Austerity and Europe

There is a huge outrage (especially in the media) about the sequester and the thus proposed cuts. Of course, clueless journalists that can't even read a spreadsheet chime in and sprout 'doom-n-gloom' rhetoric. Services on all levels would fail for rudimentary things like Firemen, Police etc. (you name it).
This might be marginally plausible, IF the sequester would cut actual spending!

However, it cuts only proposed future spending, as you can see here in this outake from the CBO-report:

You can see that the 2012 and 2013 budget is flat and after that outlays (spending) goes up again. This INCLUDES the proposed "cuts". To even call them cuts instead of costs stagnation is a lie and very unscientific.

This is the austerity we also see in Europe, which supposedly is killing countries:


No country actually did much in the way of austerity, they all only reigned in "future negative cashflow"!
It only shows that the sequester will change nothing, it doesn't CUT services. It only freezes the current (certainly not ABYSIMAL) state. It doesn't bode well for the world and for the US in particular, that even small non-cuts like this are derided by the communitarian public.
It seems that not even crisis do get people to realize that they are in a mess...

Link-o-Rama

Da ich heute noch Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States weiter schauen möchte, fasse ich mich einfach kurz und aggregiere hier einfach ein paar Links. Ein Review dieser Filmreihe folgt natürlich, bis dahin kann hier schon einmal ein Vorgeschmack gefunden werden:

Michael C. Moyhinan - Daily Beast says its not so good

Jeremy Kuzmarov disagress

Oliver Stone defends his work

KPC gets down Gringo Style

Coyote has problems with Obamacare

Marginal Revolution has some bad news on Holland
I have to add here that this is interesting, because some hours ago I heard on the radio that the Euro-Zone had just passed the worst of the crisis... until Italy folded in on itself. How naive and uninformed can reporters get? Answer - A lot if they work for German radio stations.

Yeah - Killing Sprees don't happen in gun-free Europe... ( German)

This Article shows why not only Waltz but also Kuehnelt-Leddin was proud to be an Austrian (rather than German)

Zettel ist gestorben!

Mit dem harten Titel "Zettel ist tot" habe ich heute vom Tod eines sehr geschätzten Bloggerkollegen erfahren. Still wird es ab jetzt in Zettel's Raum und damit ist auch gleichzeitig ein großartiger Blogger von uns gegangen. Die Bloggerlandschaft und vor allem die liberale Bloglandschaft wird Ihn vermissen. Wann immer er ein Thema aufgriff, versucht er es gut zu recherchieren und sachliche Artikel zu schreiben, die oft mit dem deutschen Mainstream aneckten und meist genauer und treffsicherer waren als die "normalen" Medien.

Seit mehr als 1 1/2 Jahren habe ich Zettel gelesen und auch das eine oder andere Mal die Kommentarfunktion genutzt. Vom Klimawandel, über die Außenpolitik bis hin zur Mali-Intervention, aber auch in die Deutsche Dichtkunst wagte er sich, immer mit Sachverstand und guten Argumenten. Wohl der größte Streitpunkt zwischen mir und ihm waren die Ansichten über unsere liebe Kanzlerin, der er geschicktes taktieren und eine standhafte Natur unterstellte.
Doch trotz gewisser Differenzen, oder vielleicht genau wegen auch solcher, habe ich seine Artikel immer mit Genuss gelesen. Das ich jetzt nun nie mehr einen lesen werde, ob nun zustimmend oder mit innerer Diskussionbereitschaft, stimmt mich traurig.

Ich wünsche seiner Familie und seinen Bekannten alles Gute und hoffe, sie werden mit dieser Situation fertig. Ich werde ihn immer in guten Gedanken bei mir tragen.

Weitere Kommentare in der Bloggosphere:

Daniel FAllenstein - AntibürokratieTeam

Boche Bissige LIberale Online

David Harnasch - Achse des Guten

CAFE standards for cars and other not-so-smart ideas

I usually like what Tyler links to, because his entries are divers and interesting throughout. This link, however, falls short in my opinion. The idea behind the CAFE standard was to push costs for fuel reduction and thus reduction in energy consumption on the automobile companies rather than on the consumer.

Of course, this is bullsh*t and didn't work out as the study at the link clearly points out. They compare the reductions due to the CAFE standard to a tax on gas. They find that a similar reduction as with the CAFE could have been achieved with a lot less money and some forgone gas consumption.

Instead of punishing automobile companies for producing cars with low MPG ratios, the study proposes taxes on the gallon-sold. This has already been done in Germany. We have a huge tax on gasoline. The tax was imposed on us as a means to pay for the road system.
There are multiple problems with that alone, but I don't want to get into them here. You can find some thoughts about it here  (Attn: All In German).
Just to summarize it, here it is:

The blue and red part of the diagram are actually taxes. These are the means to reduce consumption of gas and it partially works. However, the forgone consumption has its problems. Germans spend less and are less mobile. Most gas consumption is practically inelastic (daily drive to work) and thus we spend more gas than before. This means that although consumption decreased, prices rose:


Mehr Statistiken finden Sie bei Statista

This of course means that other kinds of consumptions have to take a back seat. It is true that punishing consumers is more effective (even cost-effective), but is it actually worth doing. This is one of the problems that I have with a lot of studies, they never actually talk about NOT doing it and what that means for the economy in general.

Fuel prices and energy prices in general, are key indicators for a lot of players in the global economy. They determine basic production costs, they determine the wealth and distribution of monthly incomes. Energy costs and fuel costs influence logistic and retail supply chains on all levels. They can make us better off or less well off.

Low fuel prices are essential for future well-being, because the less transportation costs, the more we can achieve and the more money we have for other activities. The low energy costs are partially responsible for the way Europe is today. The chance young Europeans have to visit other countries and thus to have connections to other cultures preventing future intra-european wars, is something that is related to energy costs. Without cheap travel, a German would probably still dislike a French deeply and a Spaniard would have rarely visited the capital of the former Austrian Empire.

Do you want to live in such a world?

Matters of Immigration - Bulgaria Edition

Can emigration slowly kill a country? That's apparently what some people think. Aside of Bulgaria, there is also Hungary that has a real emigration problem and even the "tiger state" of Romania.



The problem is, of course, manifold. The opening up of the labour market towards central europe, the non-existence of modern market reforms and a political instability that is the legacy of a long soviet and despotic reign. All of them have an increasing GDP/person ratio:


So there is a silver lining after all. This bodes well for the private sector, but the falling population rates spell doom for public retirement schemes. These public expenditures in the future might mean that harsh cuts await future retirées. And yet I believe even though population levels are decreasing, the agile markets in those countries could save them if given the freedom necessary.
Given enough time and a more stable law and order environment, all three countries might regain their footing. People usually don't quit countries easily and many hang on to their homeland for a long time, even reconsidering going back.
Of course, you can only capture those people, if they see the opportunity to come back and live a decent life again. This means that wealth creation should be the top priority of those governments.

Wider dem "faulen" Franzosen! - Eine Replik

Es wird ja gerne behauptet, dass die Griechen, Italiener, Spanier, Portugiesen und ja auch die Franzosen in ihrer ökonomischen Misere sitzen, weil sie nicht so produktiv wären, wie Ihre angel-sächsischen oder germanischen Kollegen. Es mag sein, dass eine Fabrik, die vor dem Verkauf steht, nicht sehr poduktiv ist (wie auch, sie haben wenig zu tun als zu hoffen und zu bangen).
Es mag auch sein, dass die Gewerkschaften in ihrer Arroganz in Frankreich ein Problem darstellen (dafür gibt es genug objektive Beweise, genauso wie Berichte von Cadre-Angestellten in Frankreich).

Dennoch ist der durchschnittliche Franzose in seinen 35 h meist sehr produktiv, auch weil der gehobene Arbeiter weit mehr als 35 h absolviert. Ich möchte hier nur eine kleine Vergleichsliste zitieren:

 (US$ produced per hour per worker ):
Luxembourg : 57.5France : 56.6Belgium : 55.9Ireland : 51.8Italy : 50.3Austria : 46.4Germany : 45.0Netherlands : 44.5Sweden : 42.6Finland : 42.6UK : 42.0Denmark : 40.4Malta : 35.7Spain : 34.2Estonia : 34.0Greece : 33.1Slovenia : 30.7Slovakia : 27.8Cyprus : 27.3Portugal : 25.6Latvia : 23.9Hungary : 23.1Poland : 22.4Lithuania : 21.5Czech Republic : 18.6Bulgaria : 17.8Romania : 10.0------------------Iceland : 29.4Norway : 53.0Switzerland : 35.6Turkey : 28.5Japan : 37.3USA : 49.6

Eine sehr interessante Liste, denn der Franzose ist wesentlich produktiver als seine Kollegen in den USA, Deutschland, Großbritannien oder der Schweiz. Dennoch geht es all diesen Ländern (mit Außnahme von GB) besser als den Franzosen. Den Grund also in der Faulheit des Franzosen zu suchen, ist vielleicht nicht aller Weisheit letzter Schluß. Man kann jetzt natürlich anfangen, diese Werte in Frage zu stellen:

• Macht nicht die Tatsache die Franzosen produktiver, dass unproduktive Leute einfach arbeitslos sind (hohe Arbeitslosenquote)
• Ist eventuell die Distribution der Produktivität in anderen Ländern anders? (Cadre arbeitet mehr als nur die 35 h oft bis zu 60 h)

Ich denke jedoch, dass eine solche Betrachtung nicht wirklich weiter hilft. Es wird wahrscheinlich das Bild nicht einmal sonderlich verändern. Es ist etwas anderes, dass an der französischen Misere Schuld ist, dass indirekt damit zusammen hängt. Der Arbeitsmarkt ist rigide, unflexible und kann sich somit auf die moderne Wirtschaft nur schwer einstellen. Arbeitsbedingungen sind unabänderlich. In den meisten produzierenden Gewerben gibt es starke und unbewegliche Gewerkschaften, die jegliche Änderungen verhindern.
Dies geht von der Automobilindustrie bis hin zur Zuckerraffinierung und die Landwirtschaft.

Auch in Deutschland gibt es einen Arbeiterkampf bzw. die eine oder andere Demonstration, aber nirgends ist die Beziehung zwischen Angestelltem und allem was dieser als "Chef" ansieht (auch nicht weisungsbefugte Ingenieure!!) so schlecht, wie in Frankreich. Und genau hier liegt das Problem, denn anstatt einem Miteinander hat man immer ein Gegeneinander. Anstatt einem Betriebsrats-Konsens mit dem Management gibt es Streiks und Ablehnung. Es kommt nicht mal ein "fauler" Kompromiss heraus. Deshalb wäre so etwas wie Kurzarbeit in Frankreich undenkbar.

Doch es geht noch weiter, denn der franz. Staat macht es Unternehmen unter dem Druck der Gewerkschaften unmöglich auch in anderen Dingen flexible zu sein (es sei denn man hat jemanden im Kabinett des Präsidenten sitzen). Diverse regulierende Gesetze verpflichten kleine Unternehmen zu Sozialmaßnahmen, Gewerkschaftsbildungen u. ä. Overhead obwohl sie nicht die finanzielle Stärke haben. Das Resultat ist, dass viele kleine Unternehmen mit guten Ideen niemals die magischen Grenzen von 50 oder 250 Mitarbeitern überschreiten.

Es sind diese unflexible Ansichten, die von einer Mehrheit der Bevölkerung mitgetragen werden, als "Systeme Francaise", quasi einem Gegenentwurf zum vermuteten angelsächsischen Kapitalismus.
Es ist ein kulturelles Problem und das macht es eben so schwer das System zu ändern. Vor dem ökonomischen Wandel muss eine gesellschaftliche Einsicht kommen, sich zu wandeln.

Andere Artikel zum Thema:

http://freiseinundbleiben.blogspot.com/2012/12/armutsfalle-in-frankreich.html

http://freiseinundbleiben.blogspot.com/2011/10/mindestlohn.html

Local Food and Bad Advertising

Sometimes I can't believe what I am reading. If you look at this video and then at the comments, you probably have to shake your head and think that all of mankind has learnt nothing and hasn't evolved at all. I am kidding of course, it is not that bad, but there is still a lot of ignorance of about 200 years of trade theory and observable increases in well-being and of course some willful propaganda by the ad company.

Here are just three comments that show this level of ignorance:

James Gross 2 years ago

1. video is sick.
2. NAFTA blows.

Has the 'North American Free Trade Agreement' really helped to improve the lives of those living here? And I include other global free trade deals too. Somehow I think it just makes things more efficient for governments and mega corps to screw over the little guy.

The point this video makes is not simply "Eat Real. Eat Local" but more like SPEND LOCAL. That's the only real way to vote nowadays, is with your dollar.

sara emily 3 years ago

The way this was done was really neat, but it forgets to mention that its not as simple as buying Canadian food. Agreements like NAFTA only flood our market with more cheap imports, which keep countries in the 'third world' dependent on producing primary commodities that are subject to market fluctuations. As mentioned above, the idea that countries should produce what they are best at is just another way that the first world continues to dominate the world economy. By having countries produce "what they are best at" they are importing value added products from the west only driving up their debts.

Tari Akpodiete 3 years ago

a fantastic little film, both the information and the presentation. i'm in Canada, so it's especially meaningful for me. i've embedded it over at digipendence.com. also the comment by Jørgen Reitan Sivertsen is very interesting food for thought.

This is in my eyes why I think that lefties often rub me the wrong way. First off, not only the video but also some of these comments are a bit racist. For example, why is it so much more important to have Canadian agra-jobs rather than jobs in needy countries like Argentina or almost any country in Africa? It's just that they are foreign and bad and Canadians are domestic and good? There is more veiled racism here than in all the tea party movement together and it is worse for sure.

Now, there are several angles that could be discussed on top of that. First the fact that probably local-only production would never satisfy demand, especially in crisis situations. Then the more expensive local food means less production of things that ARE actually done "cheaply" in Canada like White Collar work. Less disposable income for all the Canadians, because they have to spend more on food and less on amneties like iPhones (and I wager all of the guys commenting there have a smartphone or osme such).

Then the statement that free trade agreements like NAFTA, the EU and others don't work and don't improve the overall well-being is just a big fat lie in the face of evidence. I live in the EU and free trade and free movement of labour is about the only thing in the EU that is good and working to our benefit!

Just remember the state of the Germanies around 1760. There were like 40 different countries in Germany ruled by different kinds of kings, lords and clerics. This meant that there were some 40 different tolls to pay, 40 different import restrictions to observe and this hampered the economic well-being of most of the German countries. It all got better when city states elevated themselves, the industrial revolution kicked in and of course, Napoleon conquered most of those states and abolished most of those restrictions.

Or just look at how much the world changed when suddenly The west started to freely trade with the Ex-Soviet states again! Yeah, freeer trade is really a bitch, but one I'd like to have around for a long time.