Inside PBS Blog

I applaud the young Egyptian men (and, I would hope, young women) who are doing innovative things to solve problems in new ways. But I'm curious about one thing: are today's Muslim youth receiving an education that teaches tolerance and respect for other faiths? I continue to hear anti-Jewish and anti-Israel rhetoric from even well-educated Egyptians, Saudis, etc. And Arab TV networks continue to broadcast programs that feature stereotypes and conspiracy theories about Jews. Does Ms. Buchen see any evidence that today's young Muslim entrepreneurs are rejecting those myths-- in other words, are they willing to put regional politics aside and engage in projects that involve Jews? In a globalized world, we all meet each other sooner or later, so we might as well learn to work together!

When you meet anyone,remember it is a Holy Encounter. As you see him, you will see yourself. As you treat him,you will treat yourself.As you think of him,you will think of yourself. Never forget this,for in him you will find yourself or lose youself. Marianne Williamson.

I am an artist and had several residencies in Cairo at El Nefeza. (www.elnafeza.com) They make handmade paper from rice stems, an agricultural waste and employ local youth.

It is now over two years since the credit crisis bedevilled the World economy, which leads to the question. Is there an opportunity to build on the efforts on the Obama administration and accelerate the recovery process in the World’s largest economy?

To date the administration has focused on rebuilding the balance sheets of the 19 major financial institutions to get cash flowing, combined with fiscal and infrastructure expenditure that will eventuate in the highest fiscal deficit/debt of the administration. Whether or not the policy of the administration will bear fruit is subject to a degree of debate, as is the impact on GDP in the next three to five years.

I put it to you it is now time to focus on revitalising the housing market. There can be no argument the housing market is central to the well-being of Americans and the American economy. The surest way to ease the credit crisis is to ensure Americans can access low cost finance to fund their housing aspirations, the single most expensive and continuous cash outlay in the purchaser’s life-cycle.

Fix housing, and all other areas of the economy will in due course recover. Jobs will be created in building and construction, in the motor industry, in whitegoods, in electronic utilities. In every sphere employment opportunities will surge, resulting in increased Federal and State taxes.

There is a need to return to the basics of a saving deposit and mortgage lending rates that provides the greatest benefit to increase disposable income by reverting to an improvement on the bankers old 3,6,3 rule, being 3% on deposits, 6% on loans and hit the golf course by 3pm. The requirement then is to set the deposit rate on savings at 2.5% per annum on savings, to sustain a long term fixed mortgage rate between 4.5% and 5% over 30 years.

In short, there is no single factor – excluding a lottery win – than can or will increase the long term financial wealth of an individual than access to long term low fixed rate mortgages.

Here is a quick calculation to consider:-

A thirty year fixed rate mortgage on a principal of $US250k less 10% deposit, with an interest rate of 5% will require annual repayments of $US14494.

The same principal $US250k, with an interest rate of 7.25% will require annual repayments of $US18419, an increase in interest expense of $US3925 per annum, or $US75 per week less cash in hand to you the borrower.

Let’s consider a simple and logical equation:-

Assume for a moment an annual income of $US75000k per annum and annual savings of $US6000k, combined with a mortgage of $US250k at 5% per annum, and a savings deposit rate of 2.5% per annum.

Using the same numbers for principal and earnings, but increasing the savings deposit rate to 5%, and the mortgage rate to 7.25% presents a totally different picture. The bottom line annual savings of $US6000 per annum decrease to $US2075 per annum.

Here is the impact after ten years:-

With a fixed rate mortgage of 5% and a savings deposit rate of 2.5%, net savings of $US6000 will result in total savings after ten years of $US68228 and an outstanding mortgage liability of $US289883.

With a mortgage rate of 7.25% and savings deposit rate of 5% net savings decrease to $US2075 per annum for a total net savings benefit after ten years of $US26963 and an outstanding mortgage liability of $US368375.

There is a need to refocus our financial acumen, and acknowledge the undeniable. The greater the rate of interest savers demand from financial institutions, the more financially disadvantaged is the individual. It can be clearly seen from the above example; financial wealth and well-being are influenced to an infinitely higher degree by the amount of disposable income or cash in hand retained, which is driven by access to a long term low interest mortgage rate.

The solution then is a no-brainer. Low long term mortgage interest rate can be sustained when each individual agrees to a lower rate of return of savings deposits.

All loans will be restricted to first time buyers seeking to purchase a home or apartment. Under no circumstances will a loan extend to the purchase of an investment properties.

To date the administration has set aside some $275 billion to provide mortgage relief.
Will the administration not take the plunge and support mortgage applicants by providing a further 5% to 10% deposit for home purchases? I can think of no better way to revive the housing and jobs market in the quickest time possible and at a fraction of the cost currently committed in the recent budget, combined with a guaranteed fixed return of 5% to government finances, and is intended to replace the buyers’ tax credit of $8000.

I put to you, the two factors addressed in this proposition; low mortgage rate and Federal funding of mortgage deposit are the catalyst to economic recovery. Simply knowing the proposals will be implemented will generate a massive psychological uplift in consumer confidence, and will no doubt trigger and economic upswing within six to twelve months.

The benefits to both Americans and all sectors of the U.S. economy will be substantial in that a lowering of the mortgage interest rate will flow through to the wider domestic economy and sustain downward pressure on other market interest rates.

In support of the above, the following criteria are submitted for review and consideration to avoid a repeat of the subprime crisis.

Mortgagor must open and retain an active savings account paying 2.5% per annum with their choice of banker and maintain the account in a continuous active status for one year before an application for mortgage finance is commenced. Interest will accrue at the rate of 2.5% per annum throughout the life of the mortgage. The fact that interest on savings will accrue at the rate of 2.5% will not during the life of the mortgage work to limit the ability of the mortgagor to obtain a higher return on savings via investments in the commercial market, and or, reduce the outstanding mortgage liability, as determined by the borrower.

Mortgagors must hold a deposit equal to not less than 10% of the total value of the property’s purchase price.

The Federal government will provide an additional deposit of between 5% and 10% of the property’s purchase price. The government’s contribution, whether 5% or 10% will be driven by the standard deposit currently expected of purchasers by the mortgage market.

The total principal financed must not exceed 3.5 times the annual household income starting at the lower level of $US50k per annum, and rising to not greater than 4.25 times annual income of $US100k per annum. This last requirement need be legislated, and be compulsory enforceable by the lender.

The borrower will be required to ensure at the time of mortgage approval, that the borrower is able to service the annual repayment liability, and further that annual repayments do not consume greater than 27% of annual base salary, excluding overtime. Again this requirement need be legislated and compulsory enforceable by the lender.

Additionally, legislation must also be in-acted to ensure financial institutions retain a capital adequacy ratio to cover the demand for mortgage finance on an annual basis.

Finally, as a means of ensuring there is a means on preventing a housing bubble – this will be partial controlled by the maximum limits tied to annual income – steps need be taken to ensure the available stock of housing will meet future demand.

Now more than ever the economies of the world need to get past the credit and economic crisis, the GM’s and Chryslers, the millions of job losses and the horrendous state of the housing market. People everywhere need more than hope. They urgently need a goal that is tangible; a goal that can be seen in clearly defined terms; and in a clearly defined time frame, and it is needed now!

There can be no surer way of outlining a clear defined path to an economic recovery than by providing the most direct and straightforward vision to achieve the outcome by re-energising the housing market, and in turn creating the millions of jobs to sustain the recovery. It is absolutely vital the threat of inflation and a substantial increase in market interest rates is avoided, if the stimulus plans announced by President Obama are to have any chance of success.

This proposition will deliver low interest market rates for years to come. The alternative, high interest rates, falling wages, depreciation of the US dollar, increasing cost for housing, and the daily necessities of life for food and clothing, combined with massive increases in energy cost.

President Obama’s administration has taken steps to maintain downward pressure on interest rates, yet the ten year yield on treasury paper has risen to 4%, and the 30 year fixed mortgage rate is 5.7%, with gasoline prices again approaching $US70 plus a barrel. So the question is can you afford to sit back and watch as mortgage rates continue to increase, and more and more of your hard earned dollars are used to meet the monthly mortgage repayments?

Right now, you have the ability to build on the administration’s initiative to maintain downward pressure on interest rates and secure your financial well being in the immediate and long term future. It is within your power to influence the decision process leading to a long term fixed rate mortgage of between 4.5% and 5%. Now is the time to communicate this requirement to your congressman and keep those hard earned dollars where they belong, in your hip pocket.

You can take action to make this proposal a reality and secure your future and that of your children. I urge you do not let this once in a lifetime opportunity slip through your fingers. You can make a difference!

I just watched the story on InJaz Egypt. I found it absolutely fascinating. I am currently in Cincinnati, Ohio visiting my mother. Two neighborhoods in Cincinnati were just named the most dangerous in the nation with 1 in 4 of residents being victimized by violent crime over the course of a year 217 per 1000 residents. There are a number of socio-economic explanations for this phenomenon but I'm less interested in discussing this than I am in the InJaz program. I would be interested in learning more, and in organizing a trip to Egypt to speak to the organizers, sponsors and participants in order to bring a similar program to a region that has been shedding jobs at an alarming rate.

Hello Charlotte,

Can you please update us on any of the INJAZ contestants and/or any of their competition projects? I just watched the video on the Frontline website and would love to know.

Thank you very much:
Laura Turchi
Chicago, IL

I'd like to be involved globaly positioned to compete in this new frontier

I spent a few days in Egypt recently and found it to be a great developing country "hustle" kind of culture... in my mind, a great start to creating many new businesses.

My question: what are some of the barriers to building more new businesses in Egypt? Startup capital? New ideas? Infrastructure? Too much bureaucracy? Skills?

Thirty years ago, while I was attending the US Junior Chamber of Commerce convention in San Antonio Texas, Ronald Reagan gave a speech. At that time, the Jaycees had over 600,000 young men in the organization doing exactly what the Egypt program is promoting. Helping young people develop the skills to be self sufficient and confident they can contribute to society. In the next decade, after Ronald Reagan, they Junior Chamber of Commerce lost support of Corporations and through a Supreme Court Ruling, women were integrated in the all young man organization. I watched as the organization changed. Pretty soon, the membership started to decline, then it rapidly declined. The wives of the young men, knowing that young women would be in attendence with their young husband found reasons for him to stay home. The "equal rights" based on having women in the all male organization led to the demise of the Jaycees. Thirty years later, the Jaycees are now less than 40,000 and continued to decline. It just did not work. What was lost is what Egypt is trying to create. The women who are trying to be integrated in the business entreprenurial environment is a challenge. But from a social perspective, the integration of Men and Women in the same playing field, did not work. Primarily because it was no longer a "boys night out". It was a Boy Girl night out with Mom home with the kids.
The Supreme Court decision killed, what Egypt is trying to accomplish. The Junior Chamber of Commerce taught the skills and at low cost. Leadership and the other skills needed for leadership and creativity no longer exists on the same scale of thirty years ago when there were over 600,000 members verses the less than 40,000 today.
Either intentional or not, our country has lost a great venue for young people to grow and develop while working and raising a family.
If given the opportunity to join an organization like the Jaycees were before "unisex" they will. But I maintain that a need for an "All Male" and an "ALL Female" program exists. It would be interesting if our Supreme Court would say it is OK to have an "All Male" or "All Female" and "Both Female and Male" organizations instead of just the one "All Female and Male".
Anyway, good program but if anyone in any country would like to experience what the Jaycees are, just have them join the Junior Chamber of Commerce in Japan, England, Germany etc. They still are not co-ed and develop their leadership.
Unfortunately, America lost when the Supreme Court ruled to disallow an "All Boy" club.

Social Entrepreneurs have such a hard time getting their foot in the door. Is this what makes the journey sweeter? Yet I've seen so many crash and burn when the need is there. Maybe this administration can make the road a little less bumpy. I volunteer for The Dinner Garden out of San Antonio and it's been a long hard road with many interesting people along the way.

Thirty years ago, while I was attending the US Junior Chamber of Commerce convention in San Antonio Texas, Ronald Reagan gave a speech. At that time, the Jaycees had over 600,000 young men in the organization doing exactly what the Egypt program is promoting. Helping young people develop the skills to be self sufficient and confident they can contribute to society. In the next decade, after Ronald Reagan, they Junior Chamber of Commerce lost support of Corporations and through a Supreme Court Ruling, women were integrated in the all young man organization. I watched as the organization changed. Pretty soon, the membership started to decline, then it rapidly declined. The wives of the young men, knowing that young women would be in attendence with their young husband found reasons for him to stay home. The "equal rights" based on having women in the all male organization led to the demise of the Jaycees.

It is nearly two years since a recession bedevilled the US and the world economy, and the prospects for economic recovery are still quire shaky to say the least. Daily we witness more and more foreclosures, more job losses, falling incomes, ballooning deficits and more bankruptcy filings as companies pare cost and cut employment.

What is needed is a strategy that builds on the Obama’s administration financial and infrastructure policy to put an end to these negatives and get America and Americans back to work.

We need to fix housing. It is that simple. There can be no argument the housing market is at the core of the American economy and Americans well-being. The surest way to economic recovery is to ensure there is access to low long-term finance to fund home purchases, the single most expensive and continuous cash outlay in a purchaser’s life-cycle.

Fix housing, and all areas of the economy will in due course recover. Jobs will be created in building and construction, in the motor industry, in durable goods. In every sphere employment opportunities will surge.

Two prerequisites are required:

Firstly, a long-term low fixed interest rate of 5% per annum, and secondly government support via financial assistance to drive a housing recovery.

What does a 5% fixed rate mean to the borrower? Bottom line is the annual repayments on a mortgage will not exceed 25% of earned income excluding overtime- ex on a salary of $US50000 and a maximum loan of 3.75 times annual income the annual repayments drop to 21.74% in year one decreasing thereafter throughout the life of the mortgage, and will increase cash in hand/disposable income of the home purchaser on an annual basis.

All it requires is a note from you or a copy of this document forwarded to your congressman asking the question. Can you help me to improve my standard of living by obtaining a fixed 30 year mortgage rate of 5%, in exchange to consenting to an interest rate of 2.5% on saving deposits?

Consider the following:-

A $US150000 loan for one year at 7.25 requires payment of an interest charge of $US5360 per annum.

The same loan at 5% reduces the interest cost to $US3684 increasing cash in hand by $US1676 per annum. I know which rate works for me!

Here is a quick calculation to consider re mortgage repayments:-

A thirty year fixed rate mortgage on a principal of $US250000 less 10% deposit with an interest rate of 5% will require annual mortgage payments of $US14494.

The same principal with an interest rate of 7.25% will require annual mortgage repayments of $US18419, an increase in interest expense of $US3925 per year or a decrease over 10 years of $44637in personal wealth. The point being with an interest rate of 7.25% you will not have the extra $US3925 to save and or increase your purchasing power.

Additionally using the above data, at the end of a 10 year period the balance outstanding on a principal of $US250000 with a fixed mortgage rate of 5% is $US289884, as opposed to $US368375 with a fixed rate of 7.25%. That is $US78491 in additional expense paid to the bank.

As you can see, in dollar terms this really is a no-brainer. Reduce the interest rate applicable to mortgage cost; the end result, an immediate increase in cash in hand to save and or increase spending power.

The requirement then is to set the deposit rate on savings at 2.5% per annum to sustain a long term fixed mortgage rate of 5% over 30 years.

You ask the question, why would I agree to these terms when interest rates are currently at historically low levels averaging 4.61 in the week ended March 27, rising to 5.24 Aug 26.You know the answer!

As the economy recovers, inflation and interest rates – well below year ago inflation interest levels of minus 0.8% through July 2009, and interest rate of 6.44%; -the inflation rate of course negative 0.8% in year 2009 is a result of falling consumer and factory input cost; -the average inflation in year 2008 is 3.85%- which will inevitable rise as the economy recovers.

Individually and collectively you have the ability to keep mortgage rate at 5% or less, you cannot rely on government subsidies to have this effect as there is already talk of reducing this phase of the government intervention.

As the economic recovery occurs someone will have to pay for the government stimulus packages and the budget deficit via increased taxation and that somebody is you. Added to this is the undeniable fact that to obtain a return on savings deposit of 5% or more, the banking establishment will increase mortgage rates to between 6% and 8% to maintain their profit margin.

The central aim of the proposal then is to create a new market for housing finance. It is intended to establish a separate and distinct low long-term interest rate market for housing finance, driven by the end-user, ensuring housing at all times remains an affordable choice for Americans and is not subject to changes in interest rates rises throughout the life of a mortgage irrespective of rising earnings; a housing market that allows both the end-user and the provider of mortgage funds to invest surplus funds in the commercial market, and earn a higher return.

The secondary aim of the proposal is to ensure the market is brought under fiscal control by putting in place the regulatory and financial regimes to avoid a repeat of the current problems besetting the housing market; by imposing the responsibility on financial institutions to ensuring regulatory controls are administered and complied with, thereby avoiding a repeat of the lax standards leading to the global crisis; and ensuring the housing needs, and livelihoods of Americans are not subject to the vagrancies of the market – refer “Mortgage funding and Regulatory” controls below.

As an aside the proposition may also be used to shield current home owners from foreclosure by extending the payment terms on their mortgages, in exchange for the borrower agreeing to a return on savings of 2.5%.

It also opens the door to no frills loans in particular credit cards loans-costs which are currently borne by the consumer as companies hire additional staff to handle the increased workload-where credit cards are dressed up with all types of promotional goodies to entice consumers to use these products- offering lower interest rate on credit cards, in the region of 10% to 12%, and lesser amounts of 6% to 7% on car loans and student loans as market competiveness reduce interest rates on these products in response to the reduction on interest rate cost in the mortgage market. In short consumers will be in a far better position to utilise the additional savings generated from a lower mortgage interest rate as opposed to reliance credit card purchases thereby savings on interest cost..

Indeed why are these products not offered by the commercial banks providing consumers with a complete package from one financial institution, with limits imposed on the dollar amount offered to consumers ensuring total repayments in any one month do not exceed 30% of total income excluding overtime.

I urge the administration of President Obama to revisit its policy of providing direct support to the mortgage market to re-energise the housing market and the American economy.

Will the administration not take the plunge and support mortgage applicants by providing a co-deposit of 5% to first time home/apartment purchases. I can think of no better way to revive the housing and jobs market in the quickest time possible and at a fraction of the cost currently committed in the budget, with a guarantee fixed return of 5% on interest repayments, plus 5% of investment earnings to government finances.

The investment component is in effect the government’s share of the gain earned from the returns generated by financial institutions investing surplus funds in the commercial market, altogether a total return of 10% to government thereby reducing the likelihood on tax increase and or reduced government services.

In respect of housing loans the important criteria here is getting the deposit required to commence a home purchase into the borrowers hands, driving both home ownership and employment. The annual and continuing savings secured by the mortgagor from a low interest of 5% or less over the long-term will more than offset -as indicated above- the one time tax rebate of $US8000. Again it reduces the likelihood that in the not too distant future, taxpayers will be asked to fund the resulting reduction in government revenue through higher taxation and or reduced public services.

These two factors, a low mortgage rate, and federal funding of mortgage deposits are the catalyst to economic recovery. Simply knowing the proposals will be implemented will generate a massive psychological uplift in consumer confidence, and is the trigger to reducing the unemployment rate back down to its historical level of 5%.

This can be achieved. It requires the political will to drive an economic outcome that works for the benefit of all Americans, and not only the 10% who control America’s wealth.

In support of the above, the following criteria “Mortgage Funding and Regulatory controls” are submitted at the end of this proposition for review and consideration to avoid a repeat of the subprime crisis.

What is needed at this juncture is a goal that is tangible; a goal that can be seen in clearly defined terms; and in a clearly defined time frame; and it is needed now!

Right now, this moment, the opportunity and the means to determine your future prosperity are within your grasp. You have the ability to determine whether you go to the next ball game, whether you go on holiday, whether you save for your children’s college cost; you have the ability to reduce your cost over the next thirty years or more by increasing disposable income/cash in hand; you can decide whether you keep your job/ accommodation, or whether you add to the growing number of individuals living in poverty.

It is within your power to influence the decision process leading to a long-term fixed rate mortgage of 5%. Now is the time to communicate this requirement to your congressman and keep those hard earned dollars where they belong, in your hip pocket.

I urge you to take action to make this proposal a reality; determine your financial well-being and improve your standard of living. Do not let this once in a lifetime opportunity slip through your fingers. I urge you forward this communiqué to your congressman. You have the opportunity to determine your financial well-being, you have the opportunity to drive and deliver outcomes that work to your benefit. Do not restrict your choice and your future well being to simply reading this article.

“Mortgage Funding and Regulatory Controls”

All loans will be restricted to first time buyers seeking to purchase a home/apartment. Under no circumstances will loans extend to the purchases of investment properties.

Mortgagor must retain an active savings account paying 2.5% per annum with their choice of banker and maintain the account in a continuous active status for one year before an application for mortgage finance commences. Interest will accrue at the rate of 2.5% per annum throughout the life of the mortgage. This will not in any way restrict the mortgagor’s ability to obtain a higher return on savings via investments in the commercial market, and or, reduce the outstanding mortgage liability, as determined by the borrower.

Mortgagors must hold a deposit equal to not less than 10% of the total value of the property’s purchase price.

The Federal government will provide an additional deposit of 5% of the property’s purchase price. Combined with the regulatory and financial pre-requisites addressed herein a 15% combined deposit is considered more than ample for financial prudence and approval.

The total principal financed must not exceed 3.5 times the annual household income commencing at a base level $US50k per annum – excluding overtime - rising to not greater than 4.25 times annual income of $US100k per annum. This last requirement need be legislated, and be compulsory enforceable by the lender.

The lender will be required to ensure at the time of mortgage approval, the borrower is able to service the annual repayment liability, and further that annual repayments do not consume greater than 25% of annual base salary, excluding overtime. Again this requirement need be legislated and compulsory enforceable by the lender.

Additionally, legislation must be in-acted to ensure financial institutions retain a capital adequacy ratio to cover the demand for mortgage finance on an annual basis.

Finally, there is a need to ensure a housing bubble is stopped dead in its tracks – this will be partial controlled by the maximum limits tied to annual income – steps need be taken to ensure the available stock of housing will meet future demand.

The bottom line then is the establishment of low cost finance to fund the purchase of principal residence, paid for by the end-user, with protection levels applying to the maximum loan facility, and government initiatives to maintain stock levels, thereby ensuring that quality affordable housing is available to all Americans.

For your information:
Annual Repayment 30 year 5% fixed rate mortgage of $US150000 = $US8696
Annual Repayment 30 year 5% fixed rate mortgage of $US200000 = $US11595
Annual Repayment 30 year 5% fixed rate mortgage of $US250000 = $US14494
Annual Repayment 30 year 5% fixed rate mortgage of $US300000 = $US17393
Annual Repayment 30 year 5% fixed rate mortgage of $US350000 = $US20292
Annual Repayment 30 year 5% fixed rate mortgage of $US400000 = $US23191

Note: The above calculations use a fixed rate of 5% and do not take inflation or rising incomes into consideration. This is driven by the fact the mortgagor will continue to pay 5% throughout the life of the mortgage in exchange for fixing the rate of return of savings deposits at 2.5% per annum. Bottom line, mortgage cost will not increase during the life of the mortgage irrespective of rising income.

It need be noted it is envisaged the interest rate on mortgages of $150000 may actually be set at 4.5% rising to a peak of 5% on mortgages of $US400000.

Comment:

Needless to say, legions of economist will jump out of the woodwork to either support or denigrate this proposition. This is to be expected. Their main argument of course will be that with rising inflation, the value of the banks investment will be eroded. To this I say consider the following; the banking institutions – and the borrower – benefitting from a savings deposit rate of 2.5% will maintain the ability to increase their returns by investing in the commercial market, - in addition financial institutions will benefit from the time lag between a depositor deciding to invest surplus funds in the market, increasing bank profits and therefore sustain a long-term mortgage rates of 5% per annum.

An Aside:

Imagine, annual mortgage payments not exceeding 25% of income and fixed for 30 years, would you have believed it possible? Does this not offer the greatest opportunity to introduce a national health care system, where each individuals contribution to health care is in the region of 5% paid for by the employer up to a maximum of approximately $US6000 per employee, a decrease of some 12% of an employer’s cost - currently averaging 17%, or about three quarters of the premium of $12680 paid to cover a family, you pay the balance of $US4266 per year - a cost that is currently passed on to the end user via increases in the cost all types of manufactured goods, and lower wages.

Bottom line is as follows; reducing employers cost will reduce the cost of manufactured goods, and increase wages, increasing the dollars remaining in your wallet.

Of course there is the fundamental argument of a social system versus private enterprise. It is a nebulous argument and one leaving more and more middle class and lower income earners with no health care. There is a choice; continue debating the issue until doomsday, or fix the problem.

Part of the problem appears to be a government run system does not work for individuals who can afford and wish to retain private care. So the question is can a social system not cater for those individuals? The short answer is yes. It is as simple as the government offering a private component whereby those individuals choosing private care pay a premium of 3% of income, - paid for by the individual - are accommodated in a private wing of a hospital at no cost, but pay the cost differential between that paid for the public service for the cost of surgery/treatment and their doctor of choice.

Of course there will be requirement to hire doctors on the same salary as U.S.A. armies Medical Corps to reduce doctors cost to a manageable level, and provide a health care service equal to that provided by U.S.A. Medical corps.