论文部分内容阅读
Forbes magazine recently published the list of Top 10 countries for Chinese migrant investors. The maker o the list made surveys in every country from many aspects， including the peace， healthcare， economy， education， politics and travel. The housing prices and migrant policies of those countries were put into the consideration as well.
Compared with last year’s list， Australia’s ranking went up by one place to the top of the list. For long， Australia has been favored by Chinese migrants because of its advanced healthcare system， high-quality education， safe social environment and traditional migrant culture. New Zealand found itself in the second place of the list. Spain got into this list again with its high success rate of immigration and the reasonable living cost. Many Chinese people see Spain as the springboard to get into Europe.
North America， especially Canada， improved the requirements for immigrant and set limitations for the migrant investors. Many people are hesitant in moving there. Meanwhile， more countries in South and Central Europe become appealing for Chinese migrants.
Notably， the migrant investors are embracing more diversified investment patterns. Different from the investment through bonds and stocks， more migrants choose to invest into and set up enterprises in their destinations to generate the employment and economic benefits for locals. Some of them directly buy houses there to get the residential permit.
Australia to cut off carbon tax under debates
The Australian Federal Parliament cancelled the carbon tax with 39 approvals against 2 objections on July 20. Thus Australia became the first country that once launched the carbon emission trading platform but finally cut it off.
After the short-term cheer in the industrial and commercial sectors， Australians have already sensed the rising concerns about the future living environment and climate. Bill Shorten， head of the Labor Party of Australia， promises to “return the carbon tax in the next election to tell the Australians that Labor Party cares about the climatic changes”.
In November 2011， Gillard， former Australian Prime Minister and leader of Labor Party， had the act about carbon tax passed in the parliament. The act officially took effect in July 2012 and required the Top 300 carbon emission enterprises to pay Aus$24 for every ton of carbon dioxide they discharged. This made Australia have the highest cost of carbon emission in the world. In the 2013 Australian election， the Liberal-National Coalition led by Tony Abbott used the elimination of carbon tax as one of its major proposals. Abbott said that the carbon tax led to the increase in the production for enterprises and living cost for ordinary citizens. This would slow down the economic growth in Australia and lower the employment. In addition， the Liberal-National Coalition believed that the carbon tax had no substantial effect on the carbon emission reduction and no benefits for the environmental protection. According to the statistical data of Australian government， the electric power cost of Australia increased by 10%， while the gas price went up 9% in the first year after the implementation of carbon tax on July 1. The carbon tax increased the weekly spending of each ordinary family by about Aus$9.9 and pushed the CPI up by 0.7%. It is forecast that each ordinary consumer would spend Aus$0.2-0.5 less on electric power every day and that each family could save the spending of over Aus$500 annually after the end of carbon tax.
However， this decision was intensively debated after being approved. The supporters of the carbon tax say that the elimination will have great influence over the natural environment and climate of Australia. Bill Shorten blames Abbott for “bringing Australia into the environment disaster”. Christine Milne， leader of the Green Party， says that the government’s actions are to steal the interest from their descendant.
Michael Raupach， director of the Institute of Environmental Changes with the Australian National University， says that elimination of carbon tax is a tragedy instead of a victory. There are enough evidences to show that the human activities lead to the environmental changes and everyone has the obligation to protect the environment.
An old Canberra citizen named Michael Irvin says that this seems to be a good thing since it can reduce the living cost of ordinary people， but the government is expected to take other measures to protect the environment.
Australia has good yet costly medical care
The latest report from the Commonwealth Health Fund of Australia said that Australia’s medical care system could rank Top 4 in the 11 developed countries， but the cost is very high.
The report made a thorough comparison of 80 indexes， including the spending on healthcare and the quality， in Australia， the U.S.， UK， France， Canada， Germany， New Zealand and other countries from 2011 to 2013. The result placed Australia at the fourth place following UK， Switzerland and Sweden. In addition， Australia got the second highest score in the care quality.
UK takes the championship of the list， far more advanced than the U.S. What’s more enviable is that the spending per capita on healthcare in the UK is less than half of that in the U.S. In addition， the spending on healthcare in the U.S. takes 17% of its GDP， the highest in all 11 listed developed countries.
The report says that the per capita spending of Australians on healthcare is Aus$3800 annually. Australians are very good at treating the chronic disease， especially the services for patients suffering from diabete. However， it ranked 8th in the access to healthcare and 9th in the cost-related healthcare problems. That means Australians are hard to get the affordable healthcare services， and could not get the medical support and attention in time.
The report was based on questionnaires sent to physicians and patients. The data from WHO and OECD was used for reference as well. According to the report， about 25% of Australians needed to pay Aus$1000 on their own for the healthcare last year. Among the 11 developed countries， only the U.S. has the higher healthcare cost than Australia. Last year， 16% of Australians did not get the prescribed drugs， ignored the physicians’ advices or treatment because of the high cost.
Compared with last year’s list， Australia’s ranking went up by one place to the top of the list. For long， Australia has been favored by Chinese migrants because of its advanced healthcare system， high-quality education， safe social environment and traditional migrant culture. New Zealand found itself in the second place of the list. Spain got into this list again with its high success rate of immigration and the reasonable living cost. Many Chinese people see Spain as the springboard to get into Europe.
North America， especially Canada， improved the requirements for immigrant and set limitations for the migrant investors. Many people are hesitant in moving there. Meanwhile， more countries in South and Central Europe become appealing for Chinese migrants.
Notably， the migrant investors are embracing more diversified investment patterns. Different from the investment through bonds and stocks， more migrants choose to invest into and set up enterprises in their destinations to generate the employment and economic benefits for locals. Some of them directly buy houses there to get the residential permit.
Australia to cut off carbon tax under debates
The Australian Federal Parliament cancelled the carbon tax with 39 approvals against 2 objections on July 20. Thus Australia became the first country that once launched the carbon emission trading platform but finally cut it off.
After the short-term cheer in the industrial and commercial sectors， Australians have already sensed the rising concerns about the future living environment and climate. Bill Shorten， head of the Labor Party of Australia， promises to “return the carbon tax in the next election to tell the Australians that Labor Party cares about the climatic changes”.
In November 2011， Gillard， former Australian Prime Minister and leader of Labor Party， had the act about carbon tax passed in the parliament. The act officially took effect in July 2012 and required the Top 300 carbon emission enterprises to pay Aus$24 for every ton of carbon dioxide they discharged. This made Australia have the highest cost of carbon emission in the world. In the 2013 Australian election， the Liberal-National Coalition led by Tony Abbott used the elimination of carbon tax as one of its major proposals. Abbott said that the carbon tax led to the increase in the production for enterprises and living cost for ordinary citizens. This would slow down the economic growth in Australia and lower the employment. In addition， the Liberal-National Coalition believed that the carbon tax had no substantial effect on the carbon emission reduction and no benefits for the environmental protection. According to the statistical data of Australian government， the electric power cost of Australia increased by 10%， while the gas price went up 9% in the first year after the implementation of carbon tax on July 1. The carbon tax increased the weekly spending of each ordinary family by about Aus$9.9 and pushed the CPI up by 0.7%. It is forecast that each ordinary consumer would spend Aus$0.2-0.5 less on electric power every day and that each family could save the spending of over Aus$500 annually after the end of carbon tax.
However， this decision was intensively debated after being approved. The supporters of the carbon tax say that the elimination will have great influence over the natural environment and climate of Australia. Bill Shorten blames Abbott for “bringing Australia into the environment disaster”. Christine Milne， leader of the Green Party， says that the government’s actions are to steal the interest from their descendant.
Michael Raupach， director of the Institute of Environmental Changes with the Australian National University， says that elimination of carbon tax is a tragedy instead of a victory. There are enough evidences to show that the human activities lead to the environmental changes and everyone has the obligation to protect the environment.
An old Canberra citizen named Michael Irvin says that this seems to be a good thing since it can reduce the living cost of ordinary people， but the government is expected to take other measures to protect the environment.
Australia has good yet costly medical care
The latest report from the Commonwealth Health Fund of Australia said that Australia’s medical care system could rank Top 4 in the 11 developed countries， but the cost is very high.
The report made a thorough comparison of 80 indexes， including the spending on healthcare and the quality， in Australia， the U.S.， UK， France， Canada， Germany， New Zealand and other countries from 2011 to 2013. The result placed Australia at the fourth place following UK， Switzerland and Sweden. In addition， Australia got the second highest score in the care quality.
UK takes the championship of the list， far more advanced than the U.S. What’s more enviable is that the spending per capita on healthcare in the UK is less than half of that in the U.S. In addition， the spending on healthcare in the U.S. takes 17% of its GDP， the highest in all 11 listed developed countries.
The report says that the per capita spending of Australians on healthcare is Aus$3800 annually. Australians are very good at treating the chronic disease， especially the services for patients suffering from diabete. However， it ranked 8th in the access to healthcare and 9th in the cost-related healthcare problems. That means Australians are hard to get the affordable healthcare services， and could not get the medical support and attention in time.
The report was based on questionnaires sent to physicians and patients. The data from WHO and OECD was used for reference as well. According to the report， about 25% of Australians needed to pay Aus$1000 on their own for the healthcare last year. Among the 11 developed countries， only the U.S. has the higher healthcare cost than Australia. Last year， 16% of Australians did not get the prescribed drugs， ignored the physicians’ advices or treatment because of the high cost.