Do you really think 80% of government health care money is wasted? [Citation Needed] Most study's suggest that private inshurance is less efficient than public spending so I am not really sure what your talking about there.
"In 1913 the 16th Amendment was passed, which allowed Congress authority to tax the citizenry on income from whatever source derived." So yes the "income tax" showed up in force, but the government still had plenty of income sources back then. The possibility of free trade is really an outgrowth of the federal government giving up on import taxes for most products.
In 1900 the recorded homicide rate in the US was under 2 per 100,000. 3.7 is about twice that and today Milwaukee has a little over twice the national homicide rate. I would suggest that the statistics under represented the homicide rate back then, but this is just going to go around in circles. Look into the actual numbers and try and come up with an unfiltered view of what that time was like. Hell, read some newspapers from back then. By 1910 the homicide rate had "gone through the roof" which should suggest they where measuring different things. Anyway, have a nice night.
Do you really think 80% of government health care money is wasted? [Citation Needed]
The Singapore government spends 1.3% of GDP on health care and the private sector spends around 2% of GDP. Overall, their health indicators are slightly better than our indicators in America. The U.S. government spends 7% of GDP on health care and the private sector spends another 7%. The delta between what the U.S. spends and what I think would be spent with a well run system is what I consider the waste. Singapore is an example of much better run system that exists in the real world. It's not an 80% difference in spending, but it's close.
Most study's suggest that private inshurance is less efficient than public spending so I am not really sure what your talking about there.
I do not find that surprising. "Private" healthcare in the U.S. is really a system of government licensed cartels. The nurses unions, AMA, insurance companies, drug companies, big hospitals, etc have all manipulated the political system to drive up the cost of care.
In 1900 the recorded homicide rate in the US was under 2 per 100,000. 3.7 is about twice that and today Milwaukee has a little over twice the national homicide rate.
The crime rate for Milwaukee statistic was from 1911, the immigration stat was from 1900, since I couldn't find one from 1900.
You can ( and I have) read accounts from the time, and the difference in crime and levels of decay becomes even more apparent. Read How the Other Half Lives and then compare it to The Corner or Gang leader for a day.
Either way, the point stands - these cities, with a high proportion of poor immigrants, did not have anything like the underclass problem that exists in the same cities today.
"In 1913 the 16th Amendment was passed, which allowed Congress authority to tax the citizenry on income from whatever source derived." So yes the "income tax" showed up in force, but the government still had plenty of income sources back then. The possibility of free trade is really an outgrowth of the federal government giving up on import taxes for most products.
In 1900 the recorded homicide rate in the US was under 2 per 100,000. 3.7 is about twice that and today Milwaukee has a little over twice the national homicide rate. I would suggest that the statistics under represented the homicide rate back then, but this is just going to go around in circles. Look into the actual numbers and try and come up with an unfiltered view of what that time was like. Hell, read some newspapers from back then. By 1910 the homicide rate had "gone through the roof" which should suggest they where measuring different things. Anyway, have a nice night.