I actually did not think i had anything of any great importance to write about this morning--but i changed my mind.  I want to mention "health care in the U.S." and "national alliances and consolidations".

First, i would not worry about this right away, but shortly down the road, we should convert our "health system" from a "private driven system" to a "government or public driven system".  There is no way of getting around the fact (if in fact the dollar numbers are correct) that the U.S. spends more than "twice" the amount on health care than other nations--with less than comparable results.  Go figure.

Come on, folks.  Every year for the past twenty years, health care costs seem to go up another 10-20% (or even worse) annually.  That's bullshit.  Yes, we may lead in the area of health care research, pharmaceuticals, etc., but actually "health wise" we are not as good as our competition who run on government programs.  Now, i know this is a bombshell issue with the voters, but talk to businesses (get their input)--rising health care costs reduce businesses ability to compete after all.

The U.S. Government run health care system would in fact be a "monster of a system", but there are ways to simplify big systems, so that you get the information you need without breaking the bank.  Standard simple forms need to be developed that don't require a lot of duplicity.  Most doctors offices, hospitals, are on-line, so timely data and and almost instant feedback can be a normal way of operating.  Look, i know people have been thinking about this for a long time.  Well, in a few years i think it might be more possible than it is right this day.  Once people regain a little confidence in their government, which does in fact give the taxpayer a lot for their money, "national health care" can become a reality--and the actual health care system would be improved while reducing costs.

I have said, the government system could be done at 70% the cost of the current system.  That is a number i pulled out of the hat, but knowing, starting out that we pay "twice" what other nations pay, i figured we should be able to maintain a better than average system if we spent 40% more than other nations on average (and probably a better system than the one we have now where we are spending more than 100% more than our competitor nations).

Enough on that subject.  Now here is the other thing i wanted to mention.

I think i mentioned before that i thought you would see new national alliances being built (again somewhat in the form of the United States and the European Union) down the road, which in turn, would reduce the number of actual nations in the world.  I cannot predict what these alliances will end up looking like, but i think the different nations need to start thinking about what fits their future the best.

For example, i think Russia should align itself with the European Union.  I think China and India are already so large that i don't see many alliances being built there.  The United States would probably not form a further alliance.  It could, but the addition of a new country (e.g., Canada, Mexico) to the United States would mean that the new addition's market value would have to be absorbed down to the 49.99% limit which would still be applied.  Just the same it is feasible the U.S. might consider such an alliance for other reasons than simply market reasons.

Some alliances i think will be natural (e.g., i see African countries banding together in some way--individually they carry less weight than they would as a band of brothers).  The middle east would be another interesting group mix.  Asia pacific.  Australia (where does it fit the best for itself?).

Anyway, i think it would be worthwhile to give this "alliance building" some "real serious thought and consideration".   Keep this in mind.  Once an "alliance" is made within globanomics it becomes very difficult to dissolve that alliance--unless of course both parties agree to the disolving).  Texas, is a good example of something like this.  The U.S. could always allow the Texans to get what they want and that is away from the rest of the United States.  We could sell Texas to Mexico and they would no longer be "aligned with the U.S.".