潇湘渌水 @ 2008-04-05 16:44 据了解，目前资本从投资主体来 看分为产业资本和金融资本。产业资本是有产业目的的投资 行为，带着产业资源进入同时也带着产业诉求，这种投资行为的退出机制在股票市场实现。金融资本分为风险投资基金（VC）、成长性投资基金（Growth） 和并购投资基金（Buyout）。VC主要投资于初创企业，数额小，少数股权，追求高风险高回报。成长性基金投资于高速扩张期企业，投资规模中等，一般占 少数，风险和回报适中。并购投资基金则致力于投资成熟行业，成长型企业，投资规模大，通常控股，低风险稳定回报；并购投资基金是全球近20年金融资本发展 最快的领域，投资期限一般为3~7年。弘毅投资的主要业务集中在并购投资基金领域。我国的创投基金起步不久，但是发展势头迅猛，目前备案公司已经超过 250家。 |
| 潇湘渌水 @ 2008-02-29 23:13 要学的是高人的思路。 跟踪基金经理人们的动态也是一种配合选股的思路,我认为不错的基金经理们有:华夏大盘精选的王亚伟;嘉实主题精选的窦玉明;广发小盘基金的陈仕德;富国天逸的陈戈;南方绩优的苏岩祝以及嘉实增长的邵建等. 在跟踪过程中,我还是把王亚伟排在心中评比的第一位,他的特征是选股有自身独特思路,从来不与其他基金经理进行抱团取暖选股扎堆,而且选择的品种尤其是重仓股在未来一段时间回顾都有大幅良好的上涨,也就是在品种决策上属于眼光很远的基金经理. 作为基本面并不是太透彻的我有一群基金经理在考核中经过筛选为我服务,确实帮我省去了很多精力,我需要做的就是跟他们进行分工,他们从基本面选股,我从技术上选时,在通过有效的资金管理往往胜率自然加大. 但嘉美姐姐也说：2008年我不想在股票里投入很多精力了，大多时候选择空仓或轻仓。但愿这次选择会是对的。2005年5月和2006年我总是喊朋友买股票，买基金，现在我觉得应该把时间放在别的上面了，到了2007年我就不敢喊了。我绝不买王亚伟买的股票。 察看基金持仓明晰可见（但只能观看上一季度的持仓）：http://fund.jrj.com.cn/openfund/default_000011.htm |
| 潇湘渌水 @ 2008-02-29 21:37 |
| 潇湘渌水 @ 2007-06-20 08:46 THE SWISS CANTONAL SYSTEM – A Model Democracy – by Frances Kendall we examine the "Swiss model" of government – a highly-decentralized system which Swiss economist Robert Nef more accurately describes as an "ongoing experiment" than a "model." The concepts of devolution of power, local autonomy, and participatory democracy have produced the world's most peaceful and prosperous country. Of course, Switzerland, with its compulsory military service, state controlled monetary system, railroad and telephone services, and taxation, is not a pure libertarian society – but for those interested in reining in out-of-control governments in other parts of the world, there are large parts of the Swiss cantonal system that are worthy of emulation. The word "democracy" is derived from the Greek words for people (demos) and power (kratos). Inherent in the concept is the idea that ordinary people should keep control of the decisions that effect their lives. In an ideal democracy, the power of those who govern is limited by safeguards that ensure that citizens can prevent their elected leaders from abusing their powers. – Switzerland – Switzerland is considered by many to be the most democratic country in the world. It is also one of the world's most successful nations in economic terms. The Swiss people have the highest per-capita incomes in the world, and Switzerland is consistently rated among the top ten nations in terms of quality of life. The key to Swiss success is not to be found in natural resources (which are in extremely short supply); nor does it lie in the temperament of its 6.4 million people, who are essentially no different from the Germans, Italians and French in the remainder of Europe. It lies rather in Switzerland's political institutions, which ensure that ordinary citizens are involved in political decision-making, and that no one interest group is able to benefit unduly at the expense of another. – A Three-Tier Federation – Switzerland is small – about one quarter the size of the US State of Ohio – and it is divided into 26 areas called cantons. The cantons are comprised of approximately 3000 communes. A central or federal government links the cantons into one unified country, but this central government controls only those affairs which are of interest to all the cantons. These matters of common interest include foreign policy, national defense, federal railways and the mint. All other issues – education, labor, economic and welfare policies and so on – are determined by the governments of the cantons and communes. Each canton has its own parliament and constitution and they differ substantially from one another. The communes, which vary in size from a few hundred to more than a million people, also have their own legislative and executive councils. The cantonal and communal governments are elected by the citizens resident in their areas of jurisdiction. – Advantages Of Decentralization – Embraces Diversity. One important reason for this de-centralization of power in Switzerland is that, unlike most European countries, Switzerland is made up of several different major ethnic groups – Germans, French, Italians, and Rhaeto-Romansch. Over the centuries, whenever conflicts have arisen between these language groups, and between Catholics and Protestants, the Swiss have resolved the conflict by allowing each of the warring groups to govern themselves. Thus single cantons have divided into half-cantons, new cantons have been formed and border communes have opted to leave one canton to join another. In this way the Swiss have developed a system which permits people of different languages, cultures, religions and traditions to live together in peace and harmony. This makes the Swiss system particularly well suited to ethnically-divided countries. Maximizes Competition Among Policies. Because so many decisions are made at the local level, the Swiss are closely involved with the laws and regulations which affect their lives – and because each canton is different, they are also able to see for themselves which policies work best. For example, one canton might have high taxes and expensive welfare programs, while another might opt for low taxes and private charity. Each Swiss citizen can then decide which policy suits him best and "vote with his feet" by moving to the canton which he finds the most attractive. The result is that good policies tend to drive out bad. – Federal Government – The national parliament consists of two houses: the popular house, which is elected by proportional representation under a system of free lists which allows all shades of political opinion to be expressed; and the Council of States, which has two representatives from each canton and one from each half-canton, is elected in most cases by a simple majority. Four political parties dominate the central government. None has a clear majority in either house and they are all represented in the cabinet (the national executive). Instead of the adversarial system common to many democracies, Swiss political groups have to work together to achieve consensus. A different president is elected by members of the central government every year. The federal government's jurisdiction is limited to those areas specified in the constitution. Once approved by both houses, new legislation is also subject to approval by the people in an optional referendum. The citizens have a six-month period during which a referendum can be called by any individual or group able to obtain 50,000 signatures on a petition. If the proposed legislation is rejected by a simple majority vote, it falls away. – Constitutional Amendments – Should the central government wish to pass legislation regarding matters not allowed by the constitution, a constitutional amendment is required. Consequently, much new legislation takes the form of amendments that can be proposed by the central government or by popular initiative. Any amendment proposed by the government must be approved by a simple majority of the people in a national referendum. All amendments require the approval of voters in a majority of the cantons. Over the years, changes to the constitution have gradually increased the jurisdiction of the Swiss federal government. Of the 216 amendments proposed between 1874 and 1985, 111 were accepted by the voters and 105 were rejected. Of the 111 which were approved, eight were popular initiatives and 14 were counter-proposals (moderate variations on popular initiatives put together by parliament). In this way the Swiss have developed a body of legislation which suits their special needs and enjoys popular support. Public-interest groups play an important role at the national level because they are able to launch referenda to block legislation they oppose. Consequently the cabinet lobbies the interest groups instead of interest groups lobbying the government, as happens in most countries. This is one important way in which the people, and not the politicians control government in Switzerland. – Government Finance – The Swiss federal government has the sole right to coin money, issue bank notes, determine the monetary system and regulate exchange controls. This monopoly is exercised by the Swiss National Bank, which is more or less independent of state interference. It is opposed to financing public deficits, and maintains a slow rate of growth in the money supply. By federal law, bank notes issued must be covered by gold and short-term securities. – Taxation And Spending – The federal government, cantons and communities all levy their own taxes. Each level collects about one-third of total government revenues, which in all comprise approximately 26% of GNP. Most taxes are direct and low. The average Swiss citizen pays about 16% of his income in taxes, and average company taxes are about 20% of profits. Switzerland's national debt and inflation rate are low. Total government spending for all three levels has averaged only 22.6% of GNP since 1946, yet expenditure on welfare and education per capita is high. This is because government revenues are spent effectively rather than wasted on a bloated bureaucracy. Switzerland has an efficient, well-equipped army to defend it from foreign invasion. Military service is universal and compulsory, and those who are unfit for combat duty serve in the most comprehensive civil defense program in Europe. Army units are formed by men from the same canton, but defense is financed and controlled by the federal government. However, as with all other aspects of Swiss government, the ultimate control of the army rests with the people. Recently an initiative was launched to scrap the army. Although the majority voted in favor of keeping the army, around 45% supported the initiative, sending out a strong message that radical reforms were required. – Direct Democracy – Public representatives frequently abuse or overstep their mandates if there are no limits to their power. That is why the success of constitutional democracies depends on the existence of checks and balances. The Swiss experience indicates that possibly the most effective check of all is a thorough-going system of direct democracy. The popular vote reflects public opinion accurately, ensures that elected representatives remain accountable, reduces the importance of party politics, focuses attention on specific issues, acts as a barometer of controversy, and encourages politicians to be fellow participants in the law-making process. In Switzerland, not only is the right to challenge legislation and launch popular initiatives entrenched at the nation-al level, but all cantons and large communes include the right to referendums and initiatives in their constitutions. Important decisions in small communes are commonly made by the citizens themselves at public meetings. Direct democracy takes two main forms: the referendum is the process whereby the people accept or reject new laws, and the initiative is the process by which citizens can themselves propose new measures. There are two types of referendum in common use: the obligatory referendum which must be held on all proposed constitutional amendments, and the optional referendum which permits new laws to be put to the popular vote provided a number of citizens sign a petition requesting the vote. Any group that wishes to launch an initiative has a specified period of time in which to collect the requisite number of signatures. Voting in Switzerland generally takes place at least four times a year, usually on Sundays. Voter turnout averages 35% but varies greatly, depending on the issue. Decisions made by popular ballot may not be overruled by the courts. Good government is achieved when rulers are made accountable – and accountability is assured when ordinary citizens can participate in decisions, remove elected representatives who abuse their mandate, and repeal unpopular laws. The Swiss system has served the ethnically diverse people of that country well for over 700 years. The rest of the world could learn from the example set in this mountain country and adopt similar systems of citizen-based government. ***************************** Frances Kendall, a member of ISIL's Advisory Board, was formally nominated along with her husband, Leon Louw, for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1988, 1989, and 1991 for their work to end Apartheid and defuse racial conflict in South Africa. She is the author of "Heart of the Nation", "Super Parents, Super Children", and "The SeX-Y Factor". She is co-author, with Leon Louw, of "South Africa: The Solution" and "Let the People Govern," which studied the Swiss system. She is a former member of the Johannesburg City Council.瑞士的行政系统－民主模板 Frances Kendall 我们将考察政府的瑞士模板－一个高度分权的系统，瑞士经济学家将其更精确的描述为“一个进行中的实验”而不是“模板”。 权 力交接、地方自治、参与民主这些概念造就了世界上最和平繁荣的国家。当然，瑞士因为其强制征兵、州立财政系统、州立铁路、电话和税收等，并非一个绝对的自 由主义的社会－但是对于世界其上很多仍然在寻求控制其“无法无天”的政府的地区，瑞士的州立系统是有很多值得效法的地方。 “民主”这个词来源于希腊语“人民”和“权力”。其内在的思想是指普通民众能够控制影响他们生活的决策。在一个理想的民众社会，统治者的权力是有限的以保障市民选举出的领导不会滥用他们的权力。 瑞士 瑞士是世界公认的最民主的国家。它也是世界上经济最成功的国家。瑞士国民有世界上最高的人均收入，并且瑞士一直被认为是世界上生活质量最高的10个国家之一。 瑞士成功的关键不是它的自然资源（此点尤其短缺），也不来自它640万国民的素质，这些人基本上来自决然不同的德国、意大利、法国和欧洲其它地区。瑞士的成功来自于它的政治建构，这保证了一般国民都可以参与到政治决策中，保证了没有任何利益基团可以损害他人获取不正当利益。 三层架构的联邦 瑞士非常小－甚至只有美国俄亥俄州的四分之一－并且它被分为26个州，所有的州大概包括3000个 社区。同时一个中央联邦政府使各州联系成一个统一的国家，但是中央政府只控制事关所有州的事务。这些事务有外交、国防、联邦铁路和铸币。所有其它的事务－ 教育、劳工、经济和福利政策等都由各州和各社区决定。每个州都有它自己截然不同的议会和宪法。而社区大小从几百人到上万人，同样都有他们的立法和执行委员 会。州政府和社区管理机构都由当地居民选举产生。 分权结构的优势 包容多元化：瑞士分权的一个重要原因是，和欧洲其它国家不同，瑞士是由几个不同的种族群体组成－德国人、法国人、意大利人和Rhaeto-Romansch。 在过去的世纪中，曾经有过不同语言群体间、天主教和新教间的冲突，瑞士通过允许不同冲突群体自治解决了他们的冲突。所以独立的州又被划分为半州，新的州的 组成其周围的社区又可以选择离开其州加入另外的州。通过这些方式，瑞士发展了一个允许不同语言、文化、宗教和传统的人们和谐共处的国家系统。这使得瑞士的 国家系统非常适应种族分治的国家。 最 大化政治竞争：因为很多决策都是地方决定的，所以瑞士国民被影响他们生活的法律和管理紧密结合在一起；因为每个州不同，他们也能够亲眼看到哪种政策效果更 好。比如：一个州采取高税收和高福利，而另一个采取低税收和私人慈善。每个瑞士国民都有权用脚决定哪种政策最适合他，他可以自由迁徙。于是结果就是所有的 政策都试图做到最好。 联邦政府 国家议会由两部分组成：众议院，这是一个由人口比例选举出来的自由竞争的系统，它允许各种各样的政治意见发表；联邦委员会，每个州两名代表，半州是一名，他们基本是由多数选举产生。 同时还有四个政党。他们没有一个可以在两个议会中占有多数席位，他们都有代表进入内阁。为了达到多数民主，瑞士的政治团体不得不合作以达到共通意见。他们每年都会选举出不同的联邦总统。 联邦政府的司法权也是被各地宪法所限制的。一项法案即使被两院通过，它也必须被国民可以任意选择的公民投票通过。一项法案在两院通过后，瑞士国民有6个月时间组织公民投票，只要有5万人签名的诉求就可以启动公民投票。如果法案被公民投票多数否决，即告流产。 宪法修正案 如果中央政府希望通过未被宪法允许的法案，就需要采用宪法修正案。于是，许多新的法案就采取了由政府提案或公众倡议产生的宪法修正案。而且任何由政府提案产生的宪法修正案都必须被国家公民投票多数通过。所有宪法修正案都必须经过多数州同意。 年复一年，对宪法的修正逐渐增加了瑞士联邦政府的司法权力。在1874年到1985年的216个宪法修正提案中，111个被通过，105不被否决。在111个通过的宪法修正案中，8个是公众倡议提案，14个 是返回提案（汇集公众倡议和议会的改良提案）。通过这些方式，瑞士已经发展出一套适合他们特殊要求并得到公众广泛支持的立法体系。当然公共利益基团也在国 家扮演了重要的角色，因为他们能够启动公民投票组织他们反对的法案。所以在瑞士是由内阁游说利益基团而不是发生在其它大多数国家的利益基团游说内阁。这即 是在瑞士由国民控制着政府而不是官僚们控制政府。 政府财政 瑞士联邦政府拥有铸币、发现货币、决定金融制度和管理汇兑的专属权利。这些垄断权是由瑞士国家银行执行，这在一定程度上避免了联邦的干扰。它可以避免被用来弥补财政赤字，并能保持低通货膨胀。依照联邦法律，纸币发行必须依靠黄金储备和短期债券。 税收和政府开支 联邦政府、州和区都各自收税。每个等级收1/3的税，政府的总税收大概占26%的GNP。大部分税是直接收取且较低。瑞士国民的所得税平均为16%，公司的所得税平均20%。同时瑞士的政府债务和通货膨胀率也很低。自1946年来的所有包括三个等级的政府开支平均占22.6%的GNP，且平均每个国民的福利和教育开支非常高。这是因为政府的支出非常有效率而没有浪费在臃肿的官僚机构花费。 瑞士高效率、装备精良的军队防卫外敌入侵。国家的军队服务是全体国民义务服兵役，而那些不适合战斗的兵员也在欧洲最广泛的国民防卫项目中服务。 军队的单位组成也以来自同一个州来编制，但国防是由联邦政府预算和控制的。当然和瑞士政府的其它方面一样，军队的最终控制还是在人民。最近发起的一项公民倡议要求废除军队，虽然投票多数还是赞成继续保持军队，但大约45%的人支持这项倡议，这反应出一个强烈的要求对军队进行根本性改革的民众意愿。 直接民主 如果民众代表没有权力限制，他们就会频繁的滥用权力或越权行事。这就是宪政民主成功的原因，它依靠的是监督和平衡的存在。瑞士经验反映的可能是所有的监督里最有效的是一种彻底的直接民主监督系统。 国民投票可以准确的反映公共意见，保证选举的代表负责，减轻党派政治的作用，使其集中于各项政治议题上，国民投票扮演了一个反对意见晴雨表的角色，并且鼓励了政客们参与到立法过程。 在瑞士，不仅仅只有国家上的反对立法法案和启动政治倡议，在所有的州和区也有权启动对州和区宪法的公民投票和倡议。在小的区重大的决定则由国民自己组成公众会议上做出。 直 接民主有两种形式：公民投票是由国民赞成和否决新法案的过程，而倡议则是由国民自发提出新措施的做出。而公民投票在运用中又有两种形式：义务公民投票，这 是对所有宪法修正案必须进行的；可选的公民投票，这是对新法案的提出在征集到一定数量的国民签名要求对其进行投票而进行。另外任何希望启动倡议的团体都有 一个特定时期去征集足够的签名。 在瑞士每年进行至少4次投票，通常是在星期日。投票的登记率平均在35%，但其变化很大，主要是依议题而定。由公民投票做出的决定可以不被法庭所否决。 当统治者负责时好的政府就建构成了－而当普通民众能参与决定，否决选举出的滥用权力的代表，否决不受公众肯定的法案时，统治者的责任才是确定的。 瑞士的系统已经周到的服务了这个多种族国家七百多年的历史。世界上的其它国家都可以学习这多山国家的典范并借鉴采用类似的公民政府系统。 |
| 潇湘渌水 @ 2007-06-18 19:35 我想我骨子里是个热爱美超过热爱正义的人，否则无法解释为什么每次我听到动听的歌曲时就觉得这个世界的一切丑恶都可以原谅。 －－－－－－－今天看到情书写的这句话，让我一阵同感，一我也是认为美是生命的最高价值，二世界上的一切罪恶在我看来都是出于各自差别和境遇而生的，所以以前和卢胖子聊到这，我说任何犯罪在我都是可以理解的。 |
| 潇湘渌水 @ 2007-06-17 21:48 刚在这http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html做了个政治测试，挺好玩的。 结果我是中立派，我的评判是 CENTRISTS espouse a "middle ground" regarding government control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes support individual freedom of choice. Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind, tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what they describe as "practical" solutions to problems. 意思是：中立派对于政府的经济控制和个人行为采取中间立场。他们有时倾向政府干预，有时支持选择的个人自由。中立派以保持开放的思想而自豪，他们反对政治极端，并强调对问题的实际解决方法。－－－－－－－－自我评价：很中肯，这就是我。 另外顺便把其它政治立场贴一下。 －－特别注意：这是国外思想系统的分类！！！跟国内决然不同！ Right (Conservative) Conservatives tend to favor economic freedom, but frequently support laws to restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional values." They oppose excessive government control of business, while endorsing government action to defend morality and the traditional family structure. Conservatives usually support a strong military, oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-market economy, and endorse strong law enforcement. Left (Liberal) Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net" to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles. Libertarian Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties. Statist (Big Government) Statists want government to have a great deal of power over the economy and individual behavior. They frequently doubt whether economic liberty and individual freedom are practical options in today's world. Statists tend to distrust the free market, support high taxes and centralized planning of the economy, oppose diverse lifestyles, and question the importance of civil liberties. 大意如下： 右翼－保守派 保守派倾向经济自由，但频繁的要求法律限制违背传统价值的个人行为。他们反对政府对商业的过度控制，并赞同保护道德和传统家庭结构的政府行为。保守派通常支持强大的军事力量，反对官僚政府和高税收，支持自由市场经济，并支持强大的法律效力。 左翼－自由派 自由派通常支持个人事物上的选择自由，但支持政府对经济的控制。他们通常支持以政府为基础的帮助弱势群体，并支持商业管制和环境管制。支持保护公民自由和言论自由，支持政府推进公平，并能容忍不同的生活方式。 自由主义者 自由主义者支持个人和经济事物的自由最大化。他们支持最小的政府，其被限制以保护个人免受强制和暴力。他们倾向支持个人负责，反对官僚政府和税收，支持私人慈善，容忍不同的生活方式，支持自由市场并保护公民自由。 中央计划主义者 中央计划主义者要求政府具有强大的力量控制经济和个人行为。他们不断怀疑经济自由和个人自由是否是今天世界的有效选择。他们不信任自由市场，支持高税收和高度计划的经济，反对不同的生活方式，并质疑公民自由的重要性。 5个分类中，调查显示英文世界里，最后一个的比例是最小的，很不幸，这点在我国应该是倒过来的。 |
| 潇湘渌水 @ 2007-06-17 11:17 从这次方罗事件到情书博客上的不断回复帖子，我是又一次真真看到了国人的脑子是多么的不好使，尽是些砖制思维系统里压出来的方脑壳。 那个什么TC傻X写篇文章，然后被情书驳得狗血淋头，结果那傻X又写信说不是这样的，既然不是这样的你写这漏洞百出误会千出的文章干吗？这种货不是傻X是什么？影射，影射个屁！老子就直接点名骂人傻X！ 还有方走了，然后看牛博的人毕竟很多脑子还是不好使的，然后伪自由主义，伪自由小人等等命题又被端上来，拜托，砖制脑袋多滚一滚，民主就是合则合，不合则分的社会，不是不合就干死你的黑社会。 |
| 潇湘渌水 @ 2007-06-17 11:12 冬虫夏草 @ 2007-05-13 23:59 在此讨论的是社会治理方式的比较,而非官场和人心层面的显象,权谋之术脱离不了礼的外衣.匿名 @ 2007-05-14 09:35
|
| 潇湘渌水 @ 2007-06-17 10:53 F.D.A. Tracked Tainted Drugs, but Trail Went Cold in China我对这个国家的公共管理机构已经不抱任何希望了，这个非人的社会只能一天天走进恐惧的深渊。 |
| 潇湘渌水 @ 2007-06-16 11:22 Research Yields Surprises About Uninsured September 14, 1992 H. E. Frech The Detroit News Especially during this election year, there is much public comment on the roughly 13 percent of Americans still without health insurance, despite decades of growth in private and public insurance. Comparable percentages in Europe are low. In France it is only 1 percent. This is a policy program. But the common impression that the uninsured get little or no medical care is false. The uninsured receive medical care by paying directly and by relying on private and public charity. Data reported by government economist M. Eugene Moyer show that the uninsured are predominantly young. In the 18-24 age bracket, 23.3 percent are uninsured. Many of the uninsured are middle or upper class, though more have lower incomes. About 70 percent of the uninsured 16 or older are employed. Most of the uninsured are not the poorest Americans, nor are they the aged. (Government Insurance covers most of the poorest and almost all of the aged.) When the uninsured are seriously ill or injured, they go to hospitals. Usually they are admitted, even if they cannot pay. This is especially so at the 10 percent of hospitals that are owned by local governments. Middle and upper class uninsured consumers sometimes pay out-of-pocket. Even private nonprofit and profit-seeking hospitals rarely reject seriously ill patients, unless there is a nearby public hospital. Uncompensated hospital care for the uninsured is supported partly by private charity, partly by taxes, and partly by overcharging paying patients. The cross-subsidy from paying patients is a major political irritant. When less seriously ill, the uninsured receive care three ways. First, they often pay out-of-pocket. Second, physicians sometimes treat them in their offices for free, just as they do for hospitalized patients. Third, they sometimes go to hospital emergency rooms for ambulatory care, especially to public hospitals. Hospitals often complain of this inefficient use of emergency facilities. As this suggests, the uninsured receive a substantial amount of medical care. A recent survey sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation shows that the uninsured averaged 3.2 physician visits in 1986, versus 4.4 for those with insurance. An average of 4.6 percent of the uninsured were hospitalized, versus 5.7 percent of those with insurance. Considering that the uninsured are relatively young, their health care use is not so low. It would exceed the average expenditure in most countries. Hospital use for the uninsured exceeds the average in the rapidly growing health maintenance organization (HMO) sector. Since insurance induces overuse of medical care, the average use of the uninsured may be roughly appropriate. However, the average masks serious problems. Some of the uninsured have difficulty obtaining free or subsidized care, especially for less serious, chronic problems. Some of those who pay for care face large financial risks. The system of private and public charity and cross-subsidies is inefficient, unfair and largely hidden from public view and debate. Further, this system is uneven geographically, so that a low-income uninsured person might get far better health care in one city than in the next. The poorer uninsured may be deterred from seeking care. Hospital emergency rooms are inconvenient and inefficient sources for routine ambulatory care. For these reasons and more, the uninsured remain a major policy problem for the United States even though they obtain a reasonable average level of medical care. One policy approach receiving attention is a combination of mandatory insurance with explicit subsidies for the poor that has been suggested by economist Mark V. Pauly. But regardless of whether market or bureaucratic health care reforms are adopted, the chafing and inequitable nature of the medically uninsured problem must be addressed. The goal must be to cover the uninsured without hindering competition and innovation in private health insurance markets. 研究产生了关于未保险者的惊讶议题 1992年9月14日 特别在今年这个大选年份，很多关于美国仍然存在着大概13%的没有健康保险的公共评论不断涌现，尽管几十年来私人和公共医疗保险一直在增长，但相比欧洲这个比例仍然是低的。法国的未保险比例是1%。 这是一个政治议题。但是一般给我们的印象未保险者只能得到很少或没有医疗却是错误的。未保险者也能通过自己支付和依靠私人、公共慈善得到医疗。由政府经济学家M. Eugene Moyer的数据报告显示，未保险者主要是年轻人，23.3%的18-24岁的年轻人没有参加保险。许多未保险者是社会中层或上层，但更多的则是低收入者。大约70%的16岁以上未保险者都是有工作的，大多数未保险者都不是最贫困的美国人和老年人（因为政府保险覆盖了大部分的贫困者和几乎所有老年人）。 当未保险者受伤或得重病时，他们也去医院。即使他们不能付钱通常也能得到治疗的。这特别是在10%的属于当地政府的医院里。而中层和上层的未保险者则常常直接付现金。 即使私有非盈利和盈利医院也几乎不拒绝重病患者，除非在其附近就有一家公共医院。同时私人慈善、税收和从付费病人处的盈利也拿来为未参加保险者提供无偿医疗。这种从付费病人给不能付费病人的跨越补助是今天的主要政治激点。 当未保险者生小病时，他们从三种方式接受治疗。第一，直接付现金；第二，医生在他们的诊室免费给予治疗，就像对住院病人一样；第三，有时进医院急诊室做非卧床护理，尤其是在公立医院。所有医院经常报怨他们的急诊设施得不到有效利用。 如以上所述，未报销者也接受了大量的医疗治疗。最近一份由Robert Wood Johnson基金资助的调查显示，1986年未保险者平均就诊次数是3.2,参加保险者是4.4。未保险者的住院次数为4.6,而医保者为5.7。 考虑到未保险者都相对年青，且他们的医疗服务使用并不低。这甚至超过了大多数国家的平均水准。未保险者的医院使用率也超过了不断增长的health maintenance organization (HMO)部门管理下的平均（注：HMO是美国一种管理医保的组织）。所以虽然医保使得医疗服务滥用，但其平均率和和未保险者的医疗服务使用平均率居然相近。 但 是，平均数却掩盖了一些严重的问题。一些未保险者很难得到免费或被资助的医疗，尤其是在一些不严重的慢性疾病。而一些为此付费治疗的人则面临巨大的财务风 险。另一方面，私人慈善、公共慈善和医疗跨越补助系统既存在无效率、不公平又大量逃避公众的省视和讨论。还有，这个系统在各地也是不同的，所以一个低收入 的未保险者可能在这个城市得到比那个城市更好的医疗服务。而更低收入者甚至无法寻求医疗服务。再就是急诊室却被作为日常非卧床护理既不方便也无效率。所以 从这些原因，即使未保险者得到了合理的医疗服务平均水准，他们仍然是今天美国的主要政治议题。 如经济学家Mark V. Pauly提出的，一个争取关注的政治解决办法是为穷人提供清楚的资助的强制性的医保。不管医疗市场和官僚部门的改革能否适应，非保险者医疗问题的摩擦和不公平性必须得到解决。同时覆盖未保险者的目的不能妨碍私人健康保险市场的竞争和创新。 |
| 潇湘渌水 @ 2007-06-15 18:01 Without Surgery, Medicare is Terminal February 23, 1984 David J. Theroux USA Today SAN FRANCISCO — Since 1965, when the Medicare system was horn, Americans have taken it for granted, secure in the belief that they wouldn’t have to worry about health care costs in their old age. But now, Medicare is sick —and without major reforms, its illness will be terminal. By law, any American over 65 is eligible for Medicare benefits. Currently, Medicare expenditures are more than billion annually — a 1,500 percent growth rate from the 1967 level of .4 billion. America is growing older. For each person over 65, there are fewer and fewer young people to pay for their care. The average retiree now can expect to collect more in benefits than he has paid into the system. Yet someone entering the work force today can expect to pay in far more than he will ever get hack. In 1995, combined Medicare taxes are scheduled to rise from the current 2.6 percent to 5.08 percent. It will not be enough to salvage the system, but it will certainly fuel the growing resentment of young people for the burden of supporting another generation. We must remember that the average after-tax income of people over 65 is higher than that of workers under 65 —and that Medicare is available to everyone, no matter how wealthy they are. Another complication is the extraordinary rise in health care costs. Since 1975, the total spent on health care has more than doubled. The cost of health care services rose 11.9 percent in 1982, three times faster than the rise in the consumer price index or the rate of inflation. Medicare not only has been affected by rising costs, it has contributed to them. Medicare is structured so that patients have almost complete coverage for initial, often trivial services. But catastrophic medical needs are only partially covered. This inhumane approach leaves those who really need total coverage without it, and encourages overuse of other services. Experiments have shown that even token charges of can reduce office visits by as much as 30 percent without affecting the quality of care. Medicare can be reformed by doing away with the dehumanizing institutions established by a generation of well-meaning bureaucrats. But the entire health care industry must be brought into line with consumer demands before real changes can be made. That can only be accomplished by restoring the basic connection between the purchaser and provider of services. That connection has been usurped by dozens of agencies and volumes of laws and regulations — the source of the problems that now threaten the lives and health of every American. 不动手术，医保将走向终点 自从1965年美国医疗保障系统建立起，人们就已经把它当作“天赋之物”，他们坚信他们再也不用担心年老以后他们的医疗费用。 但是现在，我们的医保系统出现了危机－而且如果不动大手术，它将走向终点。 美国法律规定任何年满65岁的美国公民都有权享受医保系统。所有今天的医保总费用达到每年570亿之巨－比1967年的34亿增长了1500%。 同时美国正步入老龄社会。对每个65岁以上的老人将只有越来越少的年轻人来支付他们的医疗费用。虽然现在一般的退休者可以期待相比他们为医保系统的付出受益更多，但现在刚踏入工作的人则只能付出更多相比他们今后的回报。 虽然已经计划在1995年将联合医保税收从2.6%提高至5.08%，但这并不足以解决医保系统的问题，而只能激起年轻人不断增长的对支持另一代人的负担的反感。 我们必须记住65岁以上一代的税后收入比后来者要高－而同时医保系统却是针对每个人的，不论穷富。 另一个棘手的问题是医保费用的不正常攀升。自1975年以来，总医保费用已经翻了一倍。1982年的增长更是达到11.9%，三倍于当年消费物价指数即通货膨胀。 医保体系不仅受攀升的费用影响，而且其体系问题又促进了费用的提高。 医保已经几乎完全覆盖了初级医疗，但大病患医疗却只能部分覆盖。 这种不近人情的方法使得那些真正需要全部医疗保障的得不到覆盖，却鼓励了其它医疗服务的过度使用。实验已经显示，即使收取1美元的象征性费用也可以减少30%的看病次数并且不影响医疗质量。 医保系统要改革必须废除自以为是的官僚们建立的失去人性的公共医疗机构。即在真正的改革前整个医疗产业必须是符合消费者的需求的。 只有重建医疗双方的关系才是真正的医疗改革。而这种关系已经被无数官僚机构和数不清的管制所攫取－这才是危及每个美国公民生命的医疗系统问题的根源。 |
| 潇湘渌水 @ 2007-06-13 21:59 最近家后的邻居家有个女孩演奏钢琴卡农，钩起了我的回忆，曾经多美的日子和阳光，还有娇姐跳动的身影～ |
2011年2月25日
二大页
政府:你妈的,为什么这么不给我面子?我发了5个基金还跌那么多
主力:靠,人家美国出了那么多利好也跌,如果你再不出利好我就一直打,打到4000,3500,3000也打
政府:我发基金不是利好啦?
主力:NND,这也叫利好啊?我左兜兜的钱到了右兜兜
政府:那你还想什么利好?让我痛的事我是不干的
主力:你妈的B,去年你印花税收了2000亿了,今年少收点会死啊?看都把你养得肥头肥耳了,猪一样了.
政府:钱我还怕我多啊?我手下那么多官,2000亿还不够他们一年贪呢.再说了,去年4300点的时候加的税,现在4200想让我减啊?没门.
主力:既然这样我就一直跌,跌到你新股发不出去,大小非减持不了.....
政府:妈的B,你要是不怕肉疼,你敢跌到3000点我把你印花税给免了.
主力:靠,谈不拢了,明天大盘继续跌
我国股市实在是太多故事可以说啊，哈哈~~
今天在这里立点存照：
1、经济的增长伴随着金融市场的活跃和逐步开放，金融市场作为一个整体包括股市、汇市、期货、黄金等的逐步接轨
2、经济增长后货币必然增多，对内引起通货膨胀对外则汇率升值
3、接着，国家要买资源 就得利用人民币升值 象日元去买美国资产一样；国家要稳定 就不能让人民币升值太快
4、国家买资源就要通过金融市场，主要是股市，出海购买资源，同时又要保证家里金融市场不被人家占领