'Obamacare' unveiled
This is an important week for President Obama. Indeed, one leading commentator says it will shape the next three years of American politics.
Up until now, despite all the talk of "Obamacare" there was no Plan Obama, just a presidential wish list.
That was perhaps a mistake. All generals fight the last war and many felt Bill Clinton's healthcare reform failed because it was written in the White House and rather imperiously handed down to the politicians on the Hill.
President Obama allowed the Senate and the House a free hand and got in return two bills, a lot of spending on pork, town hall meetings, the Tea Party, and a muddled debate that has left the American public confused and worried.
Oh, and no bill. The months of wrangling meant that the election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts last month deprived the Democrats of the 60 votes needed to force the plan through the Senate.
Now the White House has published its own plan. There's no public option. There's less pork. The really new measure is a plan to allow the government to curb large raises in charges by insurance companies. That may be big government. It comes just as one big insurer announced plans to increase premiums by 39%.
All this is ahead of a televised presidential meeting with Democratic and Republican politicians on Thursday.
Republicans who do not smell a trap must be rather naive. There's no doubt the public sees bipartisanship as a higher good, but for many politicians it's a game of chicken.
President Obama is tempting his opponents to come up with their own plan or look churlish by rejecting his offer and any reform. Conservative commentators suggest they should go along but not say much, hoping the public back their broad argument against the plan.
But Mr Obama doesn't need many Republican defectors: having all the Democrats plus one Republican on his side would do the trick. The president badly needs something that either looks like a victory or, and perhaps this could be more important in an election year, something that allows him to paint the Republicans as the bad guys.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~47~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
So what will he do when the insurance companies’ expenditures exceed the intakes? Can anyone say too big to fail? Of course it will be the goverments fault it happened though.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Mardell apparently you need a quick understanding of how the current laws of the US are written. Obama, key democrat leaders and their handlers (read George Soros, trial lawyers, special interest groups) work together to write these bills, in this case healthcare. While it is true Obama has not put his name on the bill so far, his "groups" have been deeply involved the entirety of the process. In fact, Obama has on several occasions held closed door meetings with Democrats to try and pass the bill. How do I know? I have several relatives who live and work in Washington D.C., one of which was consulted in constructing the Health Care bill.
Obama is putting his name on the current legislation because he believes he has the perfect case to push his bill through, but a quick look reveals something else entirely. The big raise in health insurance in California is a result of state restrictions, not the insurance company being greedy as Obama will try and cast them. Please do try and honestly address such issues in the future instead of reprint what other journalists have said. I had hoped you'd provide some interesting insight, but so far, I see you as just another liberal stooge Mr. Mardell.
Complain about this comment
It is time for the squabbling to stop and the cooperation to start. We elected these people to represent us and to negotiate with each other for the benefit of the American people. So far there has not been any give and take between the two. But that does not mean it's not possible.
If the Republicans and Democrats truly care about the American people, they need to learn to work together. This does not mean the Republicans are giving in the Democrats. This means that the Republicans are giving in to helping the American people. Health care is not just for one party-it is for all parties.
Working together for the greater good of the American people will only benefit both parties. To make this an issue between the Dems and Repubs is only making things worse. To make this an issue of health care for the American people is the correct way to approach this.
Playtime is over. It's time to get to work, Congress. For the sake of our country. There's a time to be lazy and a time to hang around, but there's work to be done, so buckle down.
(Thanks, Melanie.)
Complain about this comment
Considering the strength of the opposition, "reform" without the public option is the best we can hope for at the moment. The latest proposal is designed to limit the most ruthless practices of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, including out of control premium and price increases, and if it passes it would eliminate inhumane practices such as the pre-existing condition clause, rejection when a person contracts a chronic illness that requires considerable expenses to treat, exhorbitant caps and out of pocket expenses, lack of portability, etc.
Hopefully, the GOP and the Tea Party will oppose this proposal and expose themselves as what they are: de facto champions of the insurance and pharma industries or opportunists determined to regain control of Congress and the White House even if doing it is counter productive to our society.
Complain about this comment
SaintDominick,
I have a few questions for you:
1. Why would a grassroots movement, the Tea Party support large drug/insurance companies? Does that make any sense?
2.Why wouldn't YOU support the drug companies to some extent? I'm sure you enjoy many of the amazing drugs the large companies have created and many of the incredible costs are the result of the huge costs of bringing life saving medicines to the public.
3.I agree the health insurance industry is not perfect, but why in the world would you want something bigger and less accountable (the US government) to run health care? To me, the most logical way to bring down costs is more competition across state lines and reshaping Medicade and Medicare to be more efficient (difficult as they already are government entities).
To LucyIllinois,
4. Are you sure you want more cooperation? Why even have political parties then if they all have to get along? Countries who "get things done" are called fascist, national socialist, communist, etc. If Mr. Obama could pass laws as you say we would not be living in a democracy. Enjoy the limits on government, they expand/protect your freedoms. Besides, the democrats had complete control of the senate/house/presidency the fact that they haven't succeeded is a testament to their ineffectiveness as a governing party...and you want this lot in charge of care for the sick??
Ask people in the UK, equally bad care for all but the rich. Isn't that a good system to copy?
Complain about this comment
The GOP wants so called tort law reform. What that really amounts to is giving doctors the license to commit medical malpractice with impunity. The doctors who are the friends of the Republicans have strong vested interests in HMOs, hospitals, and clinics. They are reluctant to testify against each other in court, virtually unwilling to report the few of their numbers who should be drummed out of the profession for incompetence. So called "defensive medicine" in the US means doing a thorough job, they don't get away with the kinds of mistakes that get overlooked in other countries, mistakes we never hear about where there are socialist systems like the UK.
The Democrat's friends are the trial lawyers who make lots of money out of medical malpractice cases. They will take a good case on contingency and after their expenses which can be considerable for the legal process are deducted from the settlement, they get a third of what is left over. So it's the lawyers against the doctors. I'm betting the lawyers will win. They are after all the ones who write the laws. It seems to me that denying victims of medical malpractice the right to sue for damages when some careless or incompetent doctor made a mistake that ruined their life is unAmerican. The right to sue for damages should be written into the Constitution as an amendment.
What the Democrats will have to give up on their side is the so called public option which would tax everyone to pay for anyone who can't afford the best medical care available including illegal aliens. We just can't afford it and it wouldn't be fair even if we could. There is no constitutional right to medical care at public expense.
Complain about this comment
3. At 7:44pm on 22 Feb 2010, LucyIllinois wrote:
"It is time for the squabbling to stop and the cooperation to start. We elected these people to represent us and to negotiate with each other for the benefit of the American people. So far there has not been any give and take between the two. But that does not mean it's not possible."
This is the way a lot of Americans feel. I used to think this way, but have become so cynical about the politicians of both parties, their collusion with special interests, and their holding the country hostage for pork to bring home to ensure their reelection that I hardly expect them to do anything for the country as a whole.
I hope you are letting your senators and representatives know about your feelings, and that you are persuading others to share them and work for change. I agree with you 100% on this. Good luck.
Complain about this comment
Baron, I just think that the Repubs and Dems should be focusing on the issue of health care as just that- and not as an issue over political squabbling about who wins. It is great to have debate and I agree that the two parties keep our democracy. But isn't there a time when they can work together for the good of the people and we can still have democracy?
It is true that President Obama had the best chance of passing health care when the Dems were in lead, right after he was elected. Perhaps due to inexperience, he did not react quickly enough and this was an error in judgement.
However, maybe this happened for a reason. I don't think that Obama's original health care plan was the best for the USA, even if he had good intentions. The mandate is just plain wrong and the federal government helping people pay for insurance only would make us more dependent on the govt., which will cost them more and more, and send us into even more of a deficit. So Obama's original health care plan was a bad one. We need a new health care plan- one that takes the best compromise of both parties. If they can't compromise, that only hurts us.
What President Obama and Congress should do is focus on the cost of health care- and bring it down, without issuing a mandate. That is the first step to improving things. The second step is to create jobs, so people can afford affordable health care.
Complain about this comment
5. At 8:17pm on 22 Feb 2010, Baron wrote to SaintDominick:
"I have a few questions for you:
Though not the addressee, I would likie to answer these questions as well.
1. Why would a grassroots movement, the Tea Party support large drug/insurance companies? Does that make any sense?
>If they are getting money from the companies, if their program is cut-throat capitalism and deregulation in the interest of corporate profits, if they want the Democrats to fail so badly that the GOP wins next time and if they want to just defeat anything not GOP or anything from Obama, then it is quite sensible [from their point of view].
2.Why wouldn't YOU support the drug companies to some extent? I'm sure you enjoy many of the amazing drugs the large companies have created and many of the incredible costs are the result of the huge costs of bringing life saving medicines to the public.
>Do you know that the wonderful drug companies charge Americans two, three or more times what other advanced countries are charged for the same drug. That's why drug prices in Canada, for example, are lower and why the GOP backed legislation to 1. prevent cross-border drug purchases and 2. to prevent the US government using its purchase power when ordering drugs from demanding a discount for medicade recipients. Right on GOP, who cares about the people when you can bolster profits for the CEOs!
3.I agree the health insurance industry is not perfect, but why in the world would you want something bigger and less accountable (the US government) to run health care? To me, the most logical way to bring down costs is more competition across state lines and reshaping Medicade and Medicare to be more efficient (difficult as they already are government entities).
>I will give you credit for the last part, but it will be necessary to prevent [and severely punish] collusion or cartel practices and price fixing. As to the bogus bigger is worse argument, show me an advanced country [Germany, France, Norway, etc.] that has a single payer government-run system or REGULATED private insurance system {Holland, Switzerland] and I will show you a country with better and CHEAPER health care.
Government bureaucrats would not get bonuses and raises for denying people healthcare, which is what goes on in insurance companies. Give me a disinterested government worker over someone who gets a bonus for turning my treatment down.
Also to give credit for justified suspicion, they have been ripping off Social Security for years and failing to run it to specs. A government authorized but INDEPENDENT system protected from political machinations and financial raids would have to be part of the solution.
State systems have some merit, but what if you moved from Massachusetts to Alabama? A small state like Rhode Island would have a worse system than a populous state for actuarial reasons, wouldn't it? What if your company relocated you to a state with poor or no insurance cover? How about dividing the US into regions for purposes of health care and social security? There has to be some kind of Federal oversight and that would be, for a change, legitimate use of the interstate commerce clause.
Complain about this comment
"All the generals fight the last war"...don't remind us, more disasters in Afghanistan and Iran unfolding as Iraq continues to disintegrate. More uncounted dead civilians piling up on all sides thanks to war criminal Obama's fighting the last war and several new ones, continuing the monstrous policies of war criminal Bush, with inevitable bipartisan support. Plenty of endless money for Obama's Amerika to throw away on killing foreign civilians but nothing to spare on a domestic health plan worthy of the name - with a universal single-payer public option. There will be more dead civilians in Amerika now to add to all the ones overseas as Obama adds to his toll on both fronts. So there's nothing there that belligerent Republicans can find to complain about. "There's no doubt the public sees bipartisanship as a higher" evil, where politicians bully them in "a game of chicken" to keep the rabble in line.
Complain about this comment
From my limited experience over here, I am aware that American's are, in general, sceptical of "socialist" government involvement and approve of free market rules.
The problem with HealthCare as it stands is that no-one is prepared to let the market actually operate completely unregulated (look what the banks did when regulation was reduced), but no-one trusts the Government to effectively regulate the system
In the meantime, the drug companies, health providers and insurers are all bleeding the American Public dry. No-one in the healthcare sector has an interest in seeing costs cut - higher costs mean higher profits. People drop out of the system as they can't afford insurance, so the insurers hike up the costs for those left in the system. None of the insurers appears to be prepared to offer a low cost high value coverage that would attract those without insurance back into the system, as well as those within the system away from their current provider. But there, insurance is paid for by the employer - it's like to toilet roll - what do I acre how much it costs my boss as long as it does the job and it's there when I need it.
Regulation appears to require that the system is segmented a broken up state by state, (yes I need a travel insurance to move around the US!) and there is no-one providing an affordable service from front to back - it's all different companies trying to make the most out of the system, with administrative layer upon administrative layer - it takes half an hour just to fill in the paperwork to visit the GP.
Meanwhile, the American Public have be fooled by the health companies, the politicians and sections of the press, into not noticing that their health is no better than that of the British, but it costs twice as much.
But in fairness, American Teeth are whiter and straighter, so I guess that makes it alright.
Complain about this comment
President Obama's proposal to control or regulate insurance costs offers only the illusion of reform. He wants to give oversight powers to the Department of Health & Human Services. That sounds good; but we know what can happen under Republican administrations opposed to government activism & interventions in the market. During the eight years of the GW Bush administration, agency after agency ceased to function as they were meant to do; they looked the other way. Oversight was weak, ineffective, or non-existent in a number of crucial areas—for example, in implementing good environmental policies. Maybe, as long as the Democrats are in control of the Executive branch, Obama's proposal would work as planned. But just wait until the Republicans are again in control! We need the public option or a single-payer government-run system if we want to be serious about controlling skyrocketing costs.
Complain about this comment
Rather than engaging in phylosophical debates may I suggest going to the new White House website to get the information needed to form an opinion on this subject? Simply Google: Putting Americans in Control of their Healthcare
President Obama is not proposing to replace insurance companies with a government-run program, is not denying the need for cost increases when warranted or when justified, and is not forcing anyone to participate in the proposed plan.
The new proposal allows for people to retain their current plan, go to the same doctor/hospital/pharmacy, and basically do whatever you want. The changes involve the elimination of some of the most draconian practices by the insurance industry and cost control. Frankly, I am not sure why anyone would object to that.
Complain about this comment
Re, #6 by Marcus Aurelius:
Good points Marcus. Let's run the numbers; how many people are killed by medical malpractice each year versus how many people die because they have no access to health, get dropped by their insurer when they get sick or come down with something their health insurance won't pay for? I don't know myself but I'd be surprised if incompetent doctors kill more people than no doctors.
There is an easy compromise: allow layers to continue to earn their living sueing doctors for malpractice but allow doctors the right to refuse care to lawyers and their families. I have a feeling things would work themselves out.
Complain about this comment
Here comes President Obama’s very own Obamacare Bill, straight out of the Whitehouse.
It’s supposed to bridge differences between Senate & House Democrats before Thursday's Summit because Thursday's Summit brings together
- Republicans,
- senior administration officials and
- Congressional aides.
With President Obama’s very own Obamacare Bill also comes the tricky-dicky: The president’s proposal is being written so that it can be attached to a budget bill.
Does this matter?
Yep, because it prevents a Republican filibuster in the Senate. There’s even a name for this tricky-dicky procedure; it’s called “budget reconciliation”. It has nothing to do with republican-democrat reconciliation; it simply means the Democrats can advance the bill with a simple majority (vs. 60-vote supermajority).
This is exclusively a Presidential/Whitehouse effort. No Congressional Democrat has seen it yet. “There has not been a collaborative process,” said a Congressional Democrat with decades of health care experience. “We have not been consulted. This is very much a White House proposal.”
It was Republican, Scott Brown who forced the Democrats into this overall tricky-dickyness. By winning the Senate election in Massachusetts on Jan. 19th, he effectively stole that 60th vote that Democrats needed to avoid filibusters.
Here's an interesting statement: “It will be a reconciliation bill. If Republicans don’t come with any substantial offers, this is what we would do.”
Begs the question, does it not, what is the definition of a substantial offer? Who decides?
The President’s Plan is supposed to be posted on the Internet Monday morning. Too bad he wasn't gracious enough to provide a link, save us a little time. Democratic officials said the President’s Proposal, like the House & Senate bills, would insure more than 30 million Americans by 2019, at a cost of about $900B. Well, right there I’ve got some serious questions:
1. Why is this going to take till 2019? I mean that’s nine years away.
2. Is $900M remotely close to what the actual cost will be considering inflation and the fact that insurance companies are already raising premiums by anywhere between 15 and 39%.
The President’s Plan would
a) require most Americans to obtain health insurance or face financial penalties
b) bar insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions, and
c) give tax subsidies to help moderate-income people buy private insurance.
It seems the President’s Plan has missed pregnant ladies that want an abortion. What a gentleman!
Congressional Republicans pretty well must attend the Thursday Summit; otherwise, it looks like they’re not willing to compromise. But no matter what the Republicans say or do, Obama will go forward with the “budget reconciliation” process. Some Democracy, eh? My way or the highway! But it will make for nice TV: Democrats and Republicans working together for the good of the American people.
Republicans want Obama to scrap the whole boon-boggle and start over. Mr. Obama has rejected the notion of rejecting the whole boon-boggle, but he says he’s open to adopting Republican ideas.
I can't wait to see the finished product, maybe on December 31, 2018?
Complain about this comment
Marc:
You should go to the NYT editorial page today and see many of the ideas the Republicans have. If Pelosi and Reid were petty partsian hacks a bill could be forged.
Since I just had a 20% increase thanks to the Democrats and the trial lawyers I want legislators like Brown who look beyond party affiliation.
Complain about this comment
post 5 Baron.
"Ask the people in the UK,equally bad treatment for all but the rich"
Folks,that is not the way it is over here, that statement is not accurate.
Complain about this comment
First - I think this discussion group is one of the best. I love the way individuals (usually) use the site to debate and form ideas in a (usually) reasonable manner! Such a contrast to the name calling and educationally challenged behaviour on many US/UK online forums.
Second - I admit to reading this site since early in Justin Webbs tenure, always intending to join in, but not doing so.
Third - for the first time I now feel compelled to say something!
Having lived and worked in both the US and in the UK, and having had the opportunity to experience both forms of healthcare systems, I cannot understand why the huge angst over trying to help everyone in the US to get reasonable healthcare when needed. Education is provided at national level in the US, and few are claiming the government is behind some dastardly scheme to brainwash or control the populace. Why should healthcare be any different in that respect?
I see the appalling anxiety in families in the US when members are sick and insurance is being eaten up - and compare this to us in the UK who have excellent, free healthcare whenever needed, from simple prescriptions to complicated surgery and nursing.
The health care in the UK has been getting poor reporting on this site as on many others, and it is fair and just to give another side to this to try and alleviate the spectre of 'socialised' medicine.
I would be among the first to complain of poor service, and have experienced some substandard care both for myself and for members of my family. But no worse than some we received in the US. On the whole the treatment in the UK, from the GP service through to specialists and surgery is extremely good. Huge efforts are being made to modernise buildings and equipment, to include community members on policy panels, and to speed up appointment times.
Personal experience of both systems is hardly adequate for the comparison to be accurate - I have received good and not so good in both countries - but where the UK beats the US every time, is that I am completely unworried about whether I can afford it in the UK. And I have the choice, as US citizens will always have the choice, of 'going private' if I choose and can afford it. Often the ultimate treatment will be by the same consultants and specialists anyway.
Baron wrote at 5 - "equally bad care for all but the rich." It's not true, the care is very good for all, and occasionally poor whether private or state. We all work within systems run by humans - humans sometimes fail.
Complain about this comment
Brian Hill at 11 Mmm - I would like some American teeth tho'....
Complain about this comment
Mark:
Yes, saw the proposal of Obama-care unveiled on Monday and, it seems to be an excellent idea....
Waiting for Thursday for the "debate" and, the official together party of all-sides..
(Dennis Junior)
Complain about this comment
You know, I would be quite a lot less skeptical if the people making the laws (the congress) would have to abide by them as well. So far as I know, they have written themselves out of every piece of legislation from Social Security to Health Care.
Also, I agree there is a middle road in the healthcare debate e.g. some kind of a government voucher system to defray costs for all healthcare which would allow the individual to decide where to go and what doctor to see. Keeping the government types away from your choice in hospital.
So why, of all things, does the democrat party want to emulate the terrible system of Britain? I speak from personal experience as one who had deliver his own son at home because all the hospital beds were full and the hospital kept putting us off hoping my wife's labor would last a while. Oh yes, inquiries were to be made, but in the end it's the government looking at itself and nothing was done.
"Baron wrote at 5 - "equally bad care for all but the rich." It's not true, the care is very good for all, and occasionally poor whether private or state. We all work within systems run by humans - humans sometimes fail." -amaryr
The system in the UK is run by the good people of parliament who do not USE the very same system they say is so wonderful. What does that tell you? The same thing with public schools in the UK/US. Our government heroes tell us all is well and NONE of them send their children there. Why is that? Why do people with diabetes and cancer (now the UK is 2nd worst in all of the EU for diagnosis and treatment) protest all the time in front of parliament?
As bad as the system is in America it maximizes the numbers of lives saved and that is what real health care should do.
*For the democrat/labor "liberally" minded, give all power to the state type people out there please do me a favor:
1. never call yourselves liberals again (there is nothing about freedom or liberty which you represent)
and
2. when the system of government which you supported crushes you or a loved one, do not complain but embrace the reality of the matter, which is --your government can never and will never love you.
Complain about this comment
I believe the proposal is somewhat modest, but it's better than nothing I suppose. What a lot of people don't understand is that the healthcare reforms are more important for America's future than the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.
If the United States would have European/Canadian-style healthcare it would save the government hundreds of billions and prevent thousands of US citizens from dying or going bankrupt a year.
Tea-party all you want, but there comes a time when so many middle class families won't be able to afford healthcare that it's gonna be difficult to keep saying the market will solve everything. The entire developed world knows that, except the Republicans in the United States. Can anyone here say that Canadian healthcare is worse than that in the US? I don't think they can, yet Canadians (both government and citizens) pay much less for their healthcare, same with the Europeans, Australians and Japanese.
Why are Americans so proud of their country, and yet believe their government is incapable of operating at the same level of efficiency as those of other developed nations?
When the tea party-people are on holiday in Europe, Australia, Canada or Japan and they get an accident, would they refuse treatment there because it is "socialist", I bet not, then again, the tea party-people probably can't even point out those countries on a map, let alone travelling outside the US.
"What the Democrats will have to give up on their side is the so called public option which would tax everyone to pay for anyone who can't afford the best medical care available including illegal aliens. We just can't afford it and it wouldn't be fair even if we could. There is no constitutional right to medical care at public expense.
MarcusAureliusII"
The US has a higher per capita income than countries like Canada and France, who are doing just fine with their public healthcare systems, so I wouldn't worry about the costs. If Americans paid $50-250 (depending on income) more in taxes, while dropping their $400 healthcare insurance everyone would save a lot of money and the government would have more than enough money to provide excellent healthcare for everyone. Then there's the regulated private system of the Netherlands which still allows profit and competition, but not over the backs of the patients.
Consider the following situation: 20 people, each in possession of $100 are forced by some bad guy to play Russian roulette with a 20 round gun. However, if they give the bad guy $200 he will let them go. Europeans, Australians, Canadians or Japanese would all give $10 so no one has to die. Americans would keep their money for themselves, one of them dies and the 19 that are left will blame the dead guy for not being rich enough, even though they themselves aren't any richer and were just lucky it wasn't one of them that died.
Complain about this comment
"17. At 10:35pm on 22 Feb 2010, ukwales wrote:
post 5 Baron.
"Ask the people in the UK,equally bad treatment for all but the rich"
Folks,that is not the way it is over here, that statement is not accurate."
Tell me UKWALES, which member of parliament doesn't use private care? Or which rich person in the UK in their right minds does used private care?
Never mind, answer none. So please answer why they'd need private care if the NHS was so great?
Complain about this comment
"So why, of all things, does the democrat party want to emulate the terrible system of Britain?
Baron"
It doesn't look like the British system at all, you would know that if you had actually done some research on the subject. Overall the British system is still better than the American system, even though it may not be as good as the French or Dutch systems (which are actually closer to "Obamacare" and also rely on government oversight). All the accidents that happen in the British NHS also happen in every US hospital, save maybe a select few of the most expensive ones (the ones most Americans cannot afford and insurance companies don't want to put you in because it costs them too much).
"As bad as the system is in America it maximizes the numbers of lives saved and that is what real health care should do."
Expect for the people who don't have insurance or who's insurance company decides to drop them when their condition gets too expensive (happens a lot). Who's gonna give you chemotherapy, HIV-suppressing drugs or prosthetics when insurance won't pay for it?
Complain about this comment
I'm suffering from OHCFS, Obama Health Care Fatigue Syndrome. I'm getting pretty sick and tired of this subject. This has been going on almost since Obama took office and the chatter hasn't stopped. Now it has to start all over again. I think Obama's strategy is to wear everyone down until they'll vote for anything just so they don't have to hear it anymore.
Complain about this comment
"when the system of government which you supported crushes you or a loved one, do not complain but embrace the reality of the matter, which is --your government can never and will never love you."
when the companies which you supported crushes you or a loved one, do not complain but embrace the reality of the matter, which is --your company can never and will never love you.
Oh and hey, at least we get to choose our government which has three separate divisions that keep each other in check. And as someone already said: "Give me a disinterested government worker over someone who gets a bonus for turning my treatment down."
Complain about this comment
To modernJan- "like Canada and France, who are doing just fine with their public healthcare systems"
Why not include Europe's so called PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain) and Iceland and the UK who have great healthcare and...uh wait...oh drat they are all in huge debt and are in danger of going bankrupt.
Add a massive healthcare for all program as you fancy with the current US budget and we're in a worse mess than most of Europe.
Look Jan, if you're American I should hope you realize our Constitution forbids this kind of thing by the government. This is because socialism does not stop, ever and ends up costing, in real terms their civilization. I say this because the socialistic agenda does not end. Doesn't tooth paste paid for by all sound good? I mean clean teeth are important. Of course, we need to add food for all school children, oh, what the heck, food for all people for free! And housing should be a right, right? I mean, you need a roof over your head. On and on and on. Then you look around and you're living in a shell of a place that is falling apart (much like Britain) and you have no job and no life and cameras are all about and Big Britain is watching you. All that's left to do is pop down to the pub and have a pint, your world and freedoms in it are over.
Complain about this comment
Realistically, it looks like this might be a lose-lose situation for both parties. With little incentive to give ground, the Republicans will probably hold the line and crush hopes of bipartisan solution to healthcare. This will make them look obstructionist. Then the Democrats will use the reconciliation measure to force the bill through, making them look obstinate. Both sides will look overly partisan and there will be further assertions in the media that Washington is broken.
www.governing-principles.com
Complain about this comment
ModJan--> "chemotherapy, HIV-suppressing drugs or prosthetics"
Strangely, all created by the drug companies you despise...so, ah where's the government additions to longevity??
Complain about this comment
re: 5 Barron 3.I agree the health insurance industry is not perfect, but why in the world would you want something bigger and less accountable (the US government) to run health care? To me, the most logical way to bring down costs is more competition across state lines and reshaping Medicade and Medicare to be more efficient (difficult as they already are government entities).
Ok, first, a point of principle: an insurance corporation is more 'accountable' than a democratically elected government? Whoa, that's interesting.
As I understand it, a corporation is accountable only to its shareholders. And even then, and even if you are major share holder, such accountability may be very much lacking (just ask Warren Buffet how he feels about Kraft's latest acquisition).
Now, to the content: the government is not going to 'run' health care. This is silly hyperbole. Obama is trying to put in place a publicly funded programme that will ameliorate the worst problems of the current system, both in terms of what it costs, and in terms of 'gaps' in coverage (most importantly those who are currently under insured or not covered at all).
As to the rising costs of Medicare and Medicaid, these are primarily the result of the increasing medicalisation of life. One of the problems all heath care systems, whether public, private, or hybrid, will have to address is the insatiable public appetite for increasingly complex and frequent treatments of an ever widening array of human problems. Some thoughts on that in the Canadian context here.
This is a serious issue requiring serious consideration. But is such a discussion possible without resorting to cries of 'death panels' and the like?
Complain about this comment
@amaryr (Mary?)
Thank you for stating something I felt so strongly when I came to America from the UK to work. I tell people this and they look at me in amazement. For the first time in my life (in America) I was scared because I didn't know (and still do not know to this day) if I will get treatment if I fall sick. On this one point the "socialist" medicine of Europe scores hands down over the American system. The American system is good if you have a job. If you do not have a job America is a very frightening place to be.
Complain about this comment
25. MarcusAureliusII:
"I'm suffering from OHCFS, Obama Health Care Fatigue Syndrome. I'm getting pretty sick and tired of this subject. "
*****************
That might be because the contents of Obama's bill have been stalled in the Senate for a while now. Maybe he believes they're somehow different coming from him.
I know this is all political maneuvering, but you do have to wonder about a president coming out with something that's been rejected already. Maybe he didn't notice?
Complain about this comment
I see all the favorable comparisons to single, much smaller countries' health care delivery systems as a case for health care being administered here at the state level. Yet, somehow only the federal government is deemed capable of administering health care?
The argument seems to go something like this: The states cannot be trusted but a gigantic federal bureaucracy can. Hmmm... I'm unconvinced.
Complain about this comment
"I see all the favorable comparisons to single, much smaller countries' health care delivery systems as a case for health care being administered here at the state level. Yet, somehow only the federal government is deemed capable of administering health care?
The argument seems to go something like this: The states cannot be trusted but a gigantic federal bureaucracy can. Hmmm... I'm unconvinced.
AndreaNY"
Japan has 130 million inhabitants, the UK and France have 60 million. Going from that to 300 million isn't that much of a deal. Most of the work and oversight would be done by the states anyway, it's just that the federal government should be the supreme authority because otherwise you'll get different healthcare in different states.
Complain about this comment
33. At 01:26am on 23 Feb 2010, AndreaNY wrote:
"I see all the favorable comparisons to single, much smaller countries' health care delivery systems as a case for health care being administered here at the state level. Yet, somehow only the federal government is deemed capable of administering health care?"
But I have been told that Libertarianism is crazy, it would after all limit the rights dream of empire and the lefts dream of a police state. We have 50 test beds to try out ideas and see what works and the left always want a federal solution to everything.
Complain about this comment
Andrea -- why is a gigantic bureaucracy required at all? In Canada, the system is federally funded and provincially administered. At neither level is there a gigantic bureaucracy. And this is for a universal single payer system.
Maybe that's because all the government does is set the parameters and pay the bills. All actual heath care decisions are made by patients and doctors.
Complain about this comment
"ModJan--> "chemotherapy, HIV-suppressing drugs or prosthetics"
Strangely, all created by the drug companies you despise...so, ah where's the government additions to longevity??
Baron"
That's a ridiculous answer that clearly shows you do not know how European healthcare works, I'm not even gonna explain it to you, try Google and Wikipedia.
"Look Jan, if you're American I should hope you realize our Constitution forbids this kind of thing by the government. This is because socialism does not stop, ever and ends up costing, in real terms their civilization. I say this because the socialistic agenda does not end. Doesn't tooth paste paid for by all sound good? I mean clean teeth are important. Of course, we need to add food for all school children, oh, what the heck, food for all people for free! And housing should be a right, right? I mean, you need a roof over your head. On and on and on. Then you look around and you're living in a shell of a place that is falling apart (much like Britain) and you have no job and no life and cameras are all about and Big Britain is watching you. All that's left to do is pop down to the pub and have a pint, your world and freedoms in it are over."
Yeah, right, the old logical fallacy of the slippery slope, again, not even worthy of an answer.
Complain about this comment
DouglasFeith: Next time perhaps some insightful comments on the contents of the article? Not every comment board is a soapbox for Bush-bashing.
I think it is clear that the American people have spoken. The economy is our main concern. Polls have shown the disapproval rating for congress in the 80s (CNN poll Feb 18). Scott Brown's landslide victory in Mass. was largely due to his stance as the "41st vote." The only way the President's plan could be put in to play is with major government oversight in the private sector. More bureaucrats means more spending which will inevitably turn into more taxes.
Complain about this comment
"More bureaucrats means more spending which will inevitably turn into more taxes.
TASTCUSMC"
Except that this isn't true for every other developed nation out there, but hey, if the American people think their government is somehow incapable of handling a healthcare system than it's their funeral. The senators all have excellent healthcare, it's you, the people who are going bankrupt when you fall ill.
Complain about this comment
I'm also suffering from OHCFS (nice one MA).
I wish the democrats would just drop the pretence of bipartisanship and go the reconciliation route already. I understand republicans are ready to attempt an unending number of amendments to stretch the vote out until November. Sounds like this circus could be in town for most of the year.
Complain about this comment
To ModernJan--> "Yeah, right, the old logical fallacy of the slippery slope, again, not even worthy of an answer."
I am really curious, where is your "cut-off" for government solutions? Do you find government involvement in all aspects of your life a positive thing? I would really like an answer.
About my ignorance of healthcare systems, I lived in England, France, Japan, South Korea and America. So, while not an expert by any means, I have had a lot of different experiences with government/healthcare systems. In all honesty, whilst looking around me at the long lines in hospital and many reports of failure, I found the NHS of the UK to be the worst. That is why I would not like such a system (mistake) to be put upon America. If you would like the system of healthcare in Europe please do go there or learn to respect the rules that were placed in our Constitution, specifically to disallow such involvement from government. There is wisdom in not seeing healthcare or anything else as a government test subject. I rather like the idea of valuing individuals and treating us as adults for once and not needing government "help".
Also, still haven't heard why NONE, repeat NONE of these grand leaders in government are under the healthcare systems they force others to participate in. Anyone care to explain this?
Complain about this comment
#2 Agree - for a nostalgic recap:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ
"I’ve often said that I don’t believe government has the answer to every problem or that it can do all things for all people. We are a nation built on the strength of individual initiative. But there are certain things that we can’t do on our own. There are certain things only a government can do." - BARACK OBAMA, weekly address, Mar. 14, 2009
Mr. Mardell I am ashamed for you "The president badly needs something that either looks like a victory or, and perhaps this could be more important in an election year, something that allows him to paint the Republicans as the bad guys." Is that your metier...'the game'- and forget about the future or reality? You have NOT been in DC that long but I think you have been hanging out with the wrong crowd. The 'game' is a sideshow, like everything in the Olympics save the hockey tournament.
Complain about this comment
Chrome-->"As to the rising costs of Medicare and Medicaid, these are primarily the result of the increasing medicalisation of life. One of the problems all heath care systems, whether public, private, or hybrid, will have to address is the insatiable public appetite for increasingly complex and frequent treatments of an ever widening array of human problems. Some thoughts on that in the Canadian context here.
This is a serious issue requiring serious consideration. But is such a discussion possible without resorting to cries of 'death panels' and the like?"
No death panel talk needed, but you bring up Medicare and Medicaid and how with more involvement and improvement human life is extended and thus, the costs go up. So, am I to understand you basically want to make all Americans go onto a Medicare/Medicaid type plan even though you say they are facing serious financial problems concerned with the lengthening of life and the increasing costs of keeping people alive? Why, I believe you brought up the death panels yourself in a way. Anyways, Not sure why you'd be so keen to enlarge the very expensive programs for all.
Again, I want to know the end game for those who support a change in healthcare. Look at history, countries are running what would be wartime deficits during relatively peaceful times. Such a strange world. The commies are all in democratic countries (EU, Japan) and the Reds are all capitalists (China, Russia). The United States so far seems to be just toeing the middle-ground, just barely. God help us all if totalitarian countries rise to power whilst we play and pay for socialism.
Complain about this comment
The only government that can expand without an increase tax revenue exists in Thomas More books. To think otherwise is simply being naïve.
Complain about this comment
To Baron
"Also, still haven't heard why NONE, repeat NONE of these grand leaders in government are under the healthcare systems they force others to participate in. Anyone care to explain this?"
Not accurate.
Gordon Brown has regularly used the NHS, when the sight in one of his eyes was saved, when his son was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis, and when his daughter died in 2001.
In fact, the opposition leader David Cameron, who is highly likely to become the next conservative PM, also used the NHS to care for his son, who had cerebral palsy and epilepsy, until his death in Feb last year, and has also been extremely vocal about his support for the NHS.
Complain about this comment
When the European Union of Soviet Socialist Republics economically implodes, at what point will talk of at least the return to some private health care be on the table for discussion? At what point will the subsidizing of medical bills all around the EU by those who still have any money left at all become an issue?
Complain about this comment
13, SaintD.
"The new proposal allows for people to retain their current plan, go to the same doctor/hospital/pharmacy, and basically do whatever you want. The changes involve the elimination of some of the most draconian practices by the insurance industry and cost control. Frankly, I am not sure why anyone would object to that."
Obama can propose, but Congress disposes. All I know is that this year extra money has been deducted from social security benefits for Medicare, and the price of prescription medicines through my insurance plan has gone up. It is the results I must concern myself with, not Washington-speak.
Complain about this comment
I haven't lived in the US and as such can't possibly understand the culture or the history that built it. BUT let me see if I've got this right.
Those against the Obama administrations healthcare reforms are saying that:
1. How dare you use my taxes to pay for a health system that will provide healthcare for all its citizens including those that currently can't afford it.
2. That a President that thinks that a country's healthcare system should be able to provide for the less fortunate must by default be a socialist.
3. That providing healthcare for those that can't afford it at public expense is unconstitutional.
4. Everyone should be able to look after themselves and if they can't, bad luck because I don't want my government helping them with my taxes.
Surely not. The majority of American's couldn't possibly think like that. Or could they?
Con (Melbourne, Australia)
Complain about this comment
43. At 03:09am on 23 Feb 2010, Baron wrote:
...
No death panel talk needed, but you bring up Medicare and Medicaid and how with more involvement and improvement human life is extended and thus, the costs go up. So, am I to understand you basically want to make all Americans go onto a Medicare/Medicaid type plan even though you say they are facing serious financial problems concerned with the lengthening of life and the increasing costs of keeping people alive? Why, I believe you brought up the death panels yourself in a way. Anyways, Not sure why you'd be so keen to enlarge the very expensive programs for all.
Again, I want to know the end game for those who support a change in healthcare. ...
___________________________
Baron -
You are one of the more articulate objectors - so here goes.
- No one in government has proposed extending medicare and medicaid to everyone. Every proposal holds the greatest number of clients remaining right where they are - in private, employer based health coverage. All of the proposals would eliminate insurer abuses that refuse or cancel insurance when it is most needed, and all of them have measures to reduce or eliminate premium hike abuse that will destroy the nation's economy at the individual family level, the business level, the state level, and the federal level simultaneously.
Medicare and medicaid are the catch-phrases for federally administered care because they are wildly popular with the people they serve even though the Republican government that created them refused to pay for them. Republicans, to my mind, should keep their mouths firmly shut about deficit spending.
- 'the lengthening of life and the increasing costs of keeping people alive' -
a) the babyboomers are about to hit the wall. Will the end of our days be as shameful as our youth was glorious?
b) The lengthening of life is one of the real triumphs of modern medicine, although the life expectancy of Americans is well down in the list. Questions of the value of life beyond the end of health or consciousness should not be the province of public policy - don't you agree?
- Enlarging the program for all - is there some conservative or capitalist principle that humans can be free only if some are in bondage, only prosperous as long as some are destitute, the healthiest of their time only when some are are known to be denied care? Virtuous only as long as compassion has clear limits?
- This very expensive program, health care in America, is expensive for two obvious reasons.
a) treatments are being designed with two goals: make it desirable (watch the incessant advertisements if you doubt this) and address the most common and most feared conditions.
b) make it as profitable as possible understanding that the insurance system is designed to conceal the cost from the patient.
The end game for me, and I am at heart still a conservative, is to ensure (that is the purpose of our system after all) that good health care will be available for me, my family, and my fellow citizens at need. And that obtaining it will not bankrupt us and the nation.
I urge you to read the President's proposal without the filters of the media or the political hacks.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
"I am really curious, where is your "cut-off" for government solutions? Do you find government involvement in all aspects of your life a positive thing? I would really like an answer.
Baron"
Easy, I'm not against capitalism, but if we are gonna throw people in the deep to compete for the rest of their lives than they should deserve a fair chance to start with (government sponsored grants, loans or scholarships for college, while high school is of course free, so your chances in the system don't depend on how rich your parents are) and they shouldn't have to drop out of the system, lose their house and die in a cardboard box when they fall ill (it's not like people choose to get ill, except for smokers of course), so healthcare should be there for anyone and if you can't pay the bill the government should do it for you.
Add to that the whole system of government services that exist today (there's a good chance you wouldn't have water and/or electricity in your home if it wasn't for federal legislation) and you're pretty much there.
You could take it the other way too: America already outsources things like prisons and security in Iraq (and both these "services" don't have a very good reputation), so where will it stop? Will America start privatizing the military or the police, handing out contracts to the lowest bidder? Or what about government itself, yeah, maybe Bill Gates could buy the Presidency and sell shares of Congress... See, I can use a slippery slope fallacy too!
Complain about this comment
48. At 06:22am on 23 Feb 2010, Con wrote:
I haven't lived in the US and as such can't possibly understand the culture or the history that built it. BUT let me see if I've got this right.
_____________________________
Con.
Never allow yourself to believe that a blog is a representative sample.
That said, you have evidence here that some of us do believe these things. If I understand any of this, the majority don't know what to think and until they make up their minds congress will remain deadlocked.
That will require real leadership or real crisis - and we have been misled before.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
@modernJan #34: One idea that we could adopt from Japan: adult males whose waistline exceeds 40 inches (females 39") ARE REQUIRED TO GO TO COUNSELING EVERY 3 MONTHS. The counselor need not be an RN or the equivalent, but does ask about tobacco use and diet. This provides a positive reinforcement for the obese to get control over their weights in order to become exempt from counseling. BTW, Japanese currently have the longest or near-longest life expectancy at birth - higher than Canada, very close to the Scandinavian countries. The US spends a lot of medical money on diseases/illnesses related to obesity.
Of course, it might not be constitutional for Congress to pass such a law - requiring obese citizens to report to counseling every 3 months - but when has that ever stopped them when the fever hits?
The feds WILL establish panels to decide which treatments should be denied to overage people -- you are over 70, sir, no transplant for you! Your doctor has already spent too much on your care, this surgical procedure is of dubious value for most patients, never mind that you and your doctor think it's the best for you. Permission for this surfery denied!
TeaPot562
Complain about this comment
41. At 02:50am on 23 Feb 2010, Baron wrote:
I am really curious, where is your "cut-off" for government solutions? Do you find government involvement in all aspects of your life a positive thing? I would really like an answer.
_________________________________
An excellent and important question.
I really don't like government's record as an administrator of much of anything. It seems to be necessary in some cases: where competitive forces would abuse the consumers, for example.
This is the outcome of our present health care system - the consumers are being abused by a well organized national cabal. Since everyone will need health care at some point (you cannot count on being one of those rare ones who live a full life without a single sick day), and this insurance based system is the only game in town, I must count all of us as consumers and at risk of loosing our coverage.
Just as the financial and banking system requires regulation because it puts us all in peril whether we are investors or not, so it is clear that the medical system must be regulated to ensure we avoid quackery, price gouging, marketing with terror tactics, and to provide thorough transparency to the market (another urgent need in financial markets).
I would love a private system that did not exclude anyone from coverage, since insurance appears to be the only way that all can have access to the medical marvels we know are at hand. A private system that was as honestly competitive as, say, the car market. But today that ain't happening, and you know it.
There are many reasons for this, many ways that Americans are kept helpless victims of this 'private system'. And the perpetrators are as shameless as the bankers. So there is a role for government. And for the prisons, in my mind.
The heart of the matter is an urgent need to apply business principles to health care - What is the mission statement of the health care system? Is it one that provides this essential service tho the whole nation? Then focus our attention on achieving 'the best care possible for all Americans', and resolutely eliminate every impediment, every waste, every falsehood in the organization, and keep improving.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
32. At 01:15am on 23 Feb 2010, AndreaNY wrote:
I know this is all political maneuvering, but you do have to wonder about a president coming out with something that's been rejected already. Maybe he didn't notice?
The Senate bill passed. The House version passed. How can the merged bill have been rejected when it hasn't yet been voted on by either House? And in case you hadn't noticed, there's a little known parliamentary procedure called Reconciliation that only requires 51 votes. If the minority insists on obstructing the majority in order to rule by default, Harry Reid plans to use it. Repeatedly.
48. At 06:22am on 23 Feb 2010, Con wrote:
The majority of American's couldn't possibly think like that. Or could they?
No. Which is why we are having this big old fight. The system used to work fairly well before the insurance companies went out of control and began putting profits before lives. They turned their backs on their customers for the sake of money. Now they are incredibly wealthy and they are attempting to derail what 70% of the population wants by using disinformation and scare tactics. They do this every single time health care reform comes up. The last time was in the early 1990s when Bill Clinton was president, which is what Mark was referring to when he made the comment about fighting the last war. Obama approached it as if the players and circumstances were all still the same, but they are not.
In the intervening years, many more millions have been hurt by insurance company policies. And many more small businesses have stopped offering even basic health insurance, which was once the norm, because their insurers drove up the prices. But back in the old days, you could survive between jobs with no health care insurance, because there were always public or charity hospitals, or if you were truly indigent, Medicaid. Or for seniors and the disabled, Medicare.
Right now, the need for reform is greater than it has been since before Medicaid and Medicare were created in 1965. The problem is that the wealth of the insurance industry is also greater than it has ever been and they don't like the idea of change - no matter how many of the 47 million currently uninsured American's suffer and die. Or if the number of uninsured rises past one fifth of the US population to one quarter or one third, or even one half - because as more people can't afford the cost, the higher they will raise rates on the people who still can. At that point, I expect, if reform does not pass now, there will be no stopping it when enough families will have been touched by the problem to represent an even larger, angrier majority.
If I were an insurance company executive I'd let it pass now, because later I might find that not only did I make a lot of people angry. I made them angry enough to vote most of my industry out of existence.
Complain about this comment
52. At 06:52am on 23 Feb 2010, TeaPot562 wrote:
The feds WILL establish panels to decide which treatments should be denied to overage people -- you are over 70, sir, no transplant for you! Your doctor has already spent too much on your care, this surgical procedure is of dubious value for most patients, never mind that you and your doctor think it's the best for you. Permission for this surfery denied!
_____________________________
Teaparty,
You are either badly misled or deliberately misleading us.
My mother, who is 82, recently had her regular checkup. She has type 1 diabetes and 25 years ago had a radical mastectomy for breast cancer. Her doctor, for the first time, offered the option to forego the mammogram (which she finds distasteful and very painful). Recent studies have determined that the benefit of annual x-ray exams of the elderly may or mot confer any statistical benefit over the small but necessary damage caused by the radiation. The choice was hers - medicare would pay for the exam if she felt it was in her interest.
This is not rationing - it is rational and compassionate. No governmental proposal in the United States has suggested rationing care. If it were to happen the public outcry would cause heads to roll. I regret that you have been misinformed in this matter, but I can recommend that you go to original sources for your information.
KScurmudgeon
non-partisan regarding health, religeon, beauty.
Complain about this comment
Teapot562 - forgive my mistaking your name - I do stay up too late -
KScrmugeon
Complain about this comment
Obama from the start has been an evangelist for a heavenly vision of health care. He tells us the lion will lay down with the lamb and all will feast on the fields of green (dollars). That insurance companies will mend their evil ways, that EVERYONE will enjoy the benefits of health care, that a snip, snip here, and a few pins and MediCare costs can be trimmed SO MUCH that it will actually lower the deficit over time.
This is clearly pie-in-the-sky. Congress tried to come up with a plan and it is as one might expect, unaffordable, horrendously complicated, a disaster if passed.
Now, Obama says, "call it MY plan!" Then when the horrible, mandatory, unaffordable health reform legislation gets passed and years go by before America finds out just how very bad this legislation is, Congress can say, it wasn't US, it was Obama's plan! We knew it wouldn't work, but we trusted him because he seemed so very confident when he told us all about the little fairies that would come and make it all right!
Obama is playing the game of rhetoric over reason. But even worse, the Executive Branch is trying to FORCE legislation through Congress. This is not the purpose of the Executive Branch in the checks and balance system set up by our Constitution. Obama must be reminded that he is merely the President and not our "beloved leader," "leading star," or "sun of the neo-Socialist future."
Complain about this comment
Brian Hill wrote:
"Meanwhile, the American Public have be fooled by the health companies, the politicians and sections of the press, into not noticing that their health is no better than that of the British, but it costs twice as much."
You have drawn two false conclusions about *our* health care system.
First, the "health" of citizens of any country is largely affected by factors outside of their health care systems, such as lifestyle and diet.
Second, "costs" between countries can not be compared unless you can actually break down exactly everything you are getting in return. If there is a direct or even an indirect link to benefits like more R&D, new drugs, new medical technology and new medical techniques that ultimately benefit people all across the world then the higher "costs" of that country can not be compared to another country that doesn't have that same level of benefits for their "costs." America is unique in that regard because it by far leads the world in medical breakthroughs.
"But in fairness, American Teeth are whiter and straighter, so I guess that makes it alright."
Putting aside your sarcasm towards something that actually has nothing to do with you and is ultimately none of your business what that means in comparison to Brits is that Americans care more about their teeth and/or have better access to dental care.
Also, why are you commenting on your health coverage as you travel through America? Did you actually expect to be covered by Americans for your health care while in our country??
Complain about this comment
Baron and Shiveringofforgottenenemies and others as ever appear at first to be posting reasonable arguments, but in fact are still parrotting the same old obfuscation and misinformation about healthcare, without considering the enormous ethical issues of living in the richest country in the world which cannot provide adequate healthcare for its people.
It seems to be time to restate the issues
1) Do you believe that adequate healthcare (like education) is a right not a privilege?
(Note I say "adequate") The big misinformation is to imply that everyone should be entitled to the best available, rather than the best possible, healthcare. It is about minimum acceptable standards for all.
2) Look at the maths - the USA spends roughly 40% more per capita on healthcare than other developed nations and has a lower life expectancy and a higher infant mortality rate.
3) It is possible for profit-making companies to function in the realm of single-payer universal healthcare. They just have to put the patients first, not the profits.
4) Tort reform should be possible to curb the excesses without actually denying patients the future right to sue for malpractice .... it works in every other developed country.
5) "The Government isn't competent to run something like this..." - we hear this sooooo often. It's pretty negative and rather pathetic from a big important country like the USA.
6) "It'll lead to the same average level of care for everyone" - No it won't - the rich will still be able to pay for private insurance to get additional services (like in education), which may actually cost less as the costs of treating the uninsured by hospitals would not be passed on to the insurers and then passed on to those who pay premiums.
However the key points are two - ethics and economics.
Ethically it is unacceptable that some citizens have no access to healthcare on demand.
Economically it is more expensive to fund medicare/aid through a private system - your tax money for the poor and elderly is going straight to the profits of the insurance companies and hospitals.
But until both parties can put aside their respective lobby groups and actually do something for all the American people (and not just the rich ones) nothing will happen.
Complain about this comment
amaryr wrote:
"Having lived and worked in both the US and in the UK, and having had the opportunity to experience both forms of healthcare systems, I cannot understand why the huge angst over trying to help everyone in the US to get reasonable healthcare when needed. Education is provided at national level in the US, and few are claiming the government is behind some dastardly scheme to brainwash or control the populace. Why should healthcare be any different in that respect?"
Maybe because Americans are willing to accept some government control for some things but not to the extent people like you propose when it comes to their health?
Also, education in America is not "provided at national level."
"I see the appalling anxiety in families in the US when members are sick and insurance is being eaten up - and compare this to us in the UK who have excellent, free healthcare whenever needed, from simple prescriptions to complicated surgery and nursing."
The vast majority of Americans do just fine and simply wish to fix certain parts of "our" system. One doesn't have to have a nationwide government controlled system like there is in the UK to do that.
Eventually Americans will decide what is best for them, as it should be. Non-Americans can go fly a kite if they don't like it.
Complain about this comment
49 kscurmudgeon
You make some great points about the lengthening of life and it's effect on healthcare costs.
As we live longer because we no longer die of simple things, then we tend to contract more serious things, which require vast research budgets to resolve .... so we can live longer and develope something else new and unknown.
50 years ago the rate of cancer was lower partly because people tended to die of other things before cancer could develope and kill them.
This also brings an economic issue - taxes pay for the healthcare of the elderly - but under the US system, why should the elderly not have to use their assets to pay for insurance and only get free treatment if they meet certain poverty criteria (like medicaid). After all they are living 10-15 years longer than in 1965 when the system was developed.
[question - is medicare a) 100% funded by the medicare contributions or b) is it topped up by federal funding from regular taxation - if "b" then how is this acceptable to the conservatives? It sounds like socialism for the elderly and capitalism for the young]
This economic problem of living longer is also affecting Europe, but with a single payer system we are not creating profits - all the money goes to treatment and administration....
Complain about this comment
MM wrote:
"The really new measure is a plan to allow the government to curb large raises in charges by insurance companies. That may be big government."
No insurance costs will ever go down (icluding cost of insurance premiums paid by doctors and hospitals) without a meaningful TORT reform.
[fat chance of that, though]
P.S. Perhaps posters who repeatedly claim that U.S. government is spending huge portion of the federal budget on defense, would care to look at the IRS's PIE CHART and see what percentage of that budget goes to ENTITLEMENTS.
For those who'd rather not: according to the IRS' pie chart published in 1040 Forms&andInstructions for 2009, a percentage of expenditures for entitlements in fiscal 2008 was 57%
[37% for SS, Medicare and other retirement, 20% for social programs].
While only 24% was spent on defense, AND veterans, AND foreign affairs
COMBINED.
Complain about this comment
Re #57
What do you mean by saying that Barack Hussein Obama is not our "beloved leader"?
Of course he is. Although for some he may be merely a "dear leader".
Complain about this comment
First off many thanks to everyone for the kind words yesterday.
As others have pointed out it would be very difficult to find a British MP that hasn’t used the NHS, I would say nigh on impossible in fact. I do think, however, that the use of the NHS is largely irrelevant, because an NHS style plan is not on the cards. The US citizenry is not being offered a British style socialised health service, in deed it hasn’t at any point.
Also I am slightly disappointed at the defeatist nature of some of the US posters here, the US is too big, the population too big, the government too incompetent to affect meaningful change, so the status quo, which appears not to be working, should be left as it is. The US is still the world powerhouse, your military and government are trusted to partially police the world. The posters who seem least enamoured with the US at home, seem to be the ones who firstly want other countries to follow the success of the American political system and trust the government to teach other regimes the error of their ways. I am not sure why they would want other countries to follow what they appear to be suggesting is an incompetent, morally corrupt system of governance, where the common people are held ransom to greedy, self servicing corporations, who hold elected officials to economic ransom.
There seems to be an agreement that the health system as it stands does not work, yet when a President has the forethought to seek change, some reject it, in part, simply because of the party he represents. Because he is a Democrat they would rather suffer, or allow others to suffer, than support even a modicum of change. The partisan nature of US politics seems to take this to the extreme, both sides are willing to pay for media distortions of situation, in the hope that their veneered version of the truth is accepted as gospel.
Then there is the issue of the Constitution, you would have hoped that Constitution was there to protect the populous and would be able to grow as the country and world changed. Rather than a suit of armour, the way it is portrayed by some (which as it is not contested seems accurate) seems more like a straight jacket impeding progress. While I remain unconvinced that the liberal thinking Founding Fathers really intended their Constitution to work like this, it has to be recognised that this document is over two hundred years old, even with the Amendments. I would hate to live constrained by a document written in the 18th Century, no matter how liberal it was at the time, and with a limited number of Amendments. A constitution written after the Second World War would be out of date in the modern age, if a constitution is not a living thing moving with the times, I remain unconvinced that it is a useful thing at all.
Complain about this comment
25. MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"I'm suffering from OHCFS, Obama Health Care Fatigue Syndrome. I'm getting pretty sick and tired of this subject. This has been going on almost since Obama took office and the chatter hasn't stopped."
_____________________________________________
Marcus - sorry that the issue of healthcare for the least fortunate in society is fatiguing you. I hope it doesn't yet "irk" you.
You have been ranting on about your own pet hates for years, and yet you are bored after only a year of discussion on a subject which is actually rather important, even if most of the USA seems to be unaware of that.
I would advise you to seek treatment for your syndrome, but it might be costly since OHCFS is excluded by all US health insurers!
Complain about this comment
Brian Hill
"But in fairness, American Teeth are whiter and straighter, so I guess that makes it alright."
Yes indeed - you can be obese because you eat badly and do no exercise (apologies to the VERY VERY small percentage of fatties who have that special gene) but heaven fobid your teeth are not all straight and white as snow.
Hmmmm.
Complain about this comment
modernJan wrote:
"Tea-party all you want, but there comes a time when so many middle class families won't be able to afford healthcare that it's gonna be difficult to keep saying the market will solve everything. The entire developed world knows that, except the Republicans in the United States. Can anyone here say that Canadian healthcare is worse than that in the US? I don't think they can, yet Canadians (both government and citizens) pay much less for their healthcare, same with the Europeans, Australians and Japanese."
You also benefit from all the medical advances that come out of America. A country that by far leads the world in such advances.
Also, the "entire developed world" does not live in America so it really isn't any of their business.
"Why are Americans so proud of their country, and yet believe their government is incapable of operating at the same level of efficiency as those of other developed nations?"
Because Americans have much to be proud of. They live in a country that has accomplished more in its relatively short history than any other country that has ever existed.
"When the tea party-people are on holiday in Europe, Australia, Canada or Japan and they get an accident, would they refuse treatment there because it is "socialist", I bet not, then again, the tea party-people probably can't even point out those countries on a map, let alone travelling outside the US."
When I needed emergency care in France I got a bill and then I paid it. Foreigners on vacation in America would also be treated in an emergency. So what exactly is your point?
That last comment of yours also shows your anti-Americanism, which I think is your primary motivation, and the motivation for most non-Americans on this site, to comment intrusively and disrespectfully on our domestic policies that have absolutely nothing to do with you or them.
Complain about this comment
21 Baron
"The system in the UK is run by the good people of parliament who do not USE the very same system they say is so wonderful."
You really think this is a rational argument against universal healthcare.
For once and for all, it is about creating a system that leaves nobody out and that offers adequate healthcare on demand (this is important as it reduces chonic illness and therefore costs).
It is not relevent whether Gordon Brown uses the NHS or not (in fact he does use it, as does David Cameron). There will always be a two-tier system for the wealthy - it's called capitalism, but there's nothing in capitalism that says the poor must suffer.
Complain about this comment
modernJan wrote:
"Oh and hey, at least we get to choose our government which has three separate divisions that keep each other in check."
Which country are you talking about because that's exactly the way the American government works??
You chose Brown?
Complain about this comment
60 AllenT2
"Maybe because Americans are willing to accept some government control for some things but not to the extent people like you propose when it comes to their health?"
Do you believe you speak for the people without healthcare coverage?
You are once again propounding the misinformation that universal healthcare leads to worse healthcare, where consistently it can be seen from other ocuntries to be the opposite .... unless you are only concerned with yourself and those of your income bracket.
I wonder whether they will charge to your defense if you lose you job, house and health insurance! I hope not.
Complain about this comment
RomeStu wrote:
"considering the enormous ethical issues of living in the richest country in the world which cannot provide adequate healthcare for its people."
American system provides more than adequate healthCARE for American people.
[and judging by the numbers, also to Canadians]
The deate is not about a quality of American healthCARE, it being at least second to none, but about costs of health INSURANCE.
BTW. U.S. is not "the richest country in the world". [check]
Although if it took care of some problems, starting with ca 20 million of illegal immigrants, it definitely would be much richer than it currently is.
Although perhaps not as rich as ...Monaco. Or Lichtenstein. ;-)
Complain about this comment
Re ##25/65...
According to some recent polls Obamascare Syndrom is becoming more and more frequent among potential American voters.
Complain about this comment
Sir please see...
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/latest_news.php?nid=22357
Complain about this comment
Regarding expenditure on healthcare and life expectancy ....
look at the second graph on this
http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php
to see that the US spends vastly more per capita (50% more than Switzerland - the second spendiest)on health for the privilege of ranking 27th in the world for life expectancy.
Oh, and just for MagicK if you look just next to the USA you see Cuba with a life expectancy of just a month or so less than the USA, but a health spend of only 4% of what the US spends.
If anyone is still having trouble with the figures, then it's time to reform the school system as well!
Complain about this comment
Con wrote:
"I haven't lived in the US and as such can't possibly understand the culture or the history that built it. BUT let me see if I've got this right.
Those against the Obama administrations healthcare reforms are saying that:
1. How dare you use my taxes to pay for a health system that will provide healthcare for all its citizens including those that currently can't afford it.
2. That a President that thinks that a country's healthcare system should be able to provide for the less fortunate must by default be a socialist.
3. That providing healthcare for those that can't afford it at public expense is unconstitutional.
4. Everyone should be able to look after themselves and if they can't, bad luck because I don't want my government helping them with my taxes.
Surely not. The majority of American's couldn't possibly think like that. Or could they?"
Do you really want to know or have you already made up your mind? That's what it looks like to me.
Anyway, here are some facts for you.
1- Most Americans have no issue with the government providing health care for those that truly can not afford it. You don't need an American NHS to do that.
2- Promoting a NHS system is promoting a more socialist system making him more of a socialist than previous presidents.
3. The American Constitution does not speak of providing health care for anyone so technically they would be correct.
4- I refer you back to #1.
Complain about this comment
post 45 EZZO,
Thank you for saying what I would have said to BARON.The treatment that saved my daughters life recently was world class.WHY oh WHY dont` people
be-leave us?.I love the US and will not enter in to point scoring against them,If the UK can look after all then the US would do it even better...
Complain about this comment
67 AllenT2
"When I needed emergency care in France I got a bill and then I paid it."
And how much was the bill compared to what you would be charged in the USA? And why?
"Foreigners on vacation in America would also be treated in an emergency. So what exactly is your point?"
Yes indeed, and it would bankrupt most of us.
This is why travel insurance in Europe has 3 categories for medical
1) Europe - cheaper as the medical part is all covered for the 27 EU nations by agreement.
2) Rest of the World (exc USA) - to cover the cost of treatment if needed anywhere you go.
3) USA - makes the policy at least twice the price due to the exorbitant costs of healthcare in the USA.
_________________________________________________________
Allen continues
"That last comment of yours also shows your anti-Americanism, which I think is your primary motivation, and the motivation for most non-Americans on this site, to comment intrusively and disrespectfully on our domestic policies that have absolutely nothing to do with you or them."
As ever you throw in accusations of anti-Americanism whenever someone suggests that the US may not be perfect. Sad and rather insecure it looks to me.
Complain about this comment
ref #74
Oh, and just for MagicK if you look just next to the USA you see Cuba with a life expectancy of just a month or so less than the USA, but a health spend of only 4% of what the US spends.
If anyone is still having trouble with the figures, then it's time to reform the school system as well!
________________
Where did you get those numbers? I hope not from Michael Moore dou cu-Fraud Sicko which like everything else Moore produces is a lie.
Also what kind of life. The Mayan descendents in Mexico live a statisticly longer life but I for one would not enjoy the sparse life.
The questions goes back to why do we need such a big beauracracy to manage it and why will Obama not put tort reform on the table which is favored by almost everyone except the trial lawyers?
Complain about this comment
Allen
"1- Most Americans have no issue with the government providing health care for those that truly can not afford it. You don't need an American NHS to do that.
2- Promoting a NHS system is promoting a more socialist system making him more of a socialist than previous presidents."
__________________________________________________________
1) - but are they happy with the amount of tax money that is spent, when a more cost-efficient system (single payer) would use less tax money. If it were my tax money, I'd be interested that it went on care not profit for hospitals.
2) - NHS is not "socialist" .... it is "socialised". Proposing something that is less right wing does not make it socialist. This is just more of the same misinformation. There are no socialists in the USA government, just some people who are less right-wing than others.
Complain about this comment
RomeStu – It is a sad fact those that shout the loudest about how the USA is sooo much better than everywhere else are the ones who react quickest to any perceived criticism of their country. It is also a shame that their default response to such perceived criticism is to shout anti-Americanism, usually followed by a personal insult. You would have thought that any country, especially one as powerful as the USA, would have been able to stand up to a little scrutiny. Also if the USA is so perfect, why are the very same posters who scream ant-Americanism so easily are the ones who seem to moan loudest about minor aspects of their own country.
Now I understand the patriotic urge to protect the country of ones birth, I am also enough of a realist to accept if I can see faults in my homeland, so can outsiders. As long as the criticism is measured and balanced I have no issue. It is also a shame that these little Americaners seem to hold no reserve in criticising the rest of the world, normally wholly inaccurately.
So it is not a matter of double standards, but double double standards, or hypocrisy squared!
Complain about this comment
David Murrell wrote:
"The US citizenry is not being offered a British style socialised health service, in deed it hasn’t at any point."
You mean Americans?
Of course that is what was hoped for by Democrats.
"Also I am slightly disappointed at the defeatist nature of some of the US posters here, the US is too big, the population too big, the government too incompetent to affect meaningful change, so the status quo, which appears not to be working, should be left as it is. The US is still the world powerhouse, your military and government are trusted to partially police the world."
Are people "defeatist" because they don't want what you want?
"The posters who seem least enamoured with the US at home, seem to be the ones who firstly want other countries to follow the success of the American political system and trust the government to teach other regimes the error of their ways."
Oh stop it. About the only thing America wishes to teach in that capacity is democracy. America couldn't care less what kind of health care system other countries choose.
"I am not sure why they would want other countries to follow what they appear to be suggesting is an incompetent, morally corrupt system of governance, where the common people are held ransom to greedy, self servicing corporations, who hold elected officials to economic ransom."
That's what it's all about for you socialists. Even if America addresses some of the things that need addressing you would still be against it, not that it is any of your business anyway, because "corporations" would still be in business.
"There seems to be an agreement that the health system as it stands does not work, yet when a President has the forethought to seek change, some reject it, in part, simply because of the party he represents. Because he is a Democrat they would rather suffer, or allow others to suffer, than support even a modicum of change."
That's your view on the matter, and that have nothing to do with the facts.
"The partisan nature of US politics seems to take this to the extreme, both sides are willing to pay for media distortions of situation, in the hope that their veneered version of the truth is accepted as gospel."
You are doing plenty of distorting yourself.
"Then there is the issue of the Constitution, you would have hoped that Constitution was there to protect the populous and would be able to grow as the country and world changed. Rather than a suit of armour, the way it is portrayed by some (which as it is not contested seems accurate) seems more like a straight jacket impeding progress."
Considering this country has accomplished more in its relatively short history than any other country that has ever existed I think it has served us just fine.
"While I remain unconvinced that the liberal thinking Founding Fathers really intended their Constitution to work like this, it has to be recognised that this document is over two hundred years old, even with the Amendments."
Do you also think of them as "liberal thinking" when their views on gun ownership are brought up?
The Constitution has always been amendable. It was designed that way. Maybe you should try reading it.
"I would hate to live constrained by a document written in the 18th Century, no matter how liberal it was at the time, and with a limited number of Amendments."
So why do you choose to stay in America?
"A constitution written after the Second World War would be out of date in the modern age, if a constitution is not a living thing moving with the times, I remain unconvinced that it is a useful thing at all."
The American Constitution is about how our government is to be structured based on basic and timeless moral values, something liberals find very hard to accept and which explains much of their general unhappiness.
Complain about this comment
76 UKWales
You've got it right there.
To be accused of anti-Americanism is a bit much. Constructive criticism of a failing system hardly ammounts to anti-Americanism.
Still, the arrogance of those who believe that only their way is the right way, in the face of all evidence is hard to argue against.
Complain about this comment
RomeStu wrote:
"Do you believe you speak for the people without healthcare coverage?"
My words are in accordance with what most Americans think or otherwise we would have had a NHS approved like Obama wanted.
"You are once again propounding the misinformation that universal healthcare leads to worse healthcare, where consistently it can be seen from other ocuntries to be the opposite .... unless you are only concerned with yourself and those of your income bracket."
Actually, I have not said anything about the quality of "universal healthcare." Nothing at all.
"I wonder whether they will charge to your defense if you lose you job, house and health insurance! I hope not."
I'm financially responsible so I have little to worry about. Thanks for the lack of concern though.
Complain about this comment
Have to say a great debate for the pros/cons of universal healthcare even if healthcare can be swapped with ‘being an America’ in some places. Primarily I do not believe there will be a ‘meeting of minds’ as such on this particular problem until market forces, in true laissez-faire style, force a solution i.e. the middle classes in the USA really start suffering. Whether this happens in this recession or the next, who knows.
22. At 00:24am on 23 Feb 2010, modernJan wrote:
“Consider the following situation: 20 people, each in possession of $100 are forced by some bad guy to play Russian roulette with a 20 round gun. However, if they give the bad guy $200 he will let them go. Europeans, Australians, Canadians or Japanese would all give $10 so no one has to die. Americans would keep their money for themselves, one of them dies and the 19 that are left will blame the dead guy for not being rich enough, even though they themselves aren't any richer and were just lucky it wasn't one of them that died.”
The reason that the average US citizen is so against any perceived ‘socialist’ solution is because America is only five or so generations away from the country being built and populated by pioneers. The mindset of their very recent forefathers would have been survival of the fittest, which is understandable in the hostile conditions that were undoubtedly endured at the time. However this self-preservation (or selfish) psyche is still prevalent and the analogy with the roulette game in an earlier post (#22) summed it up for me. The average indigenous US citizen will do what is best for themselves. End of.
Complain about this comment
RomeStu wrote:
"And how much was the bill compared to what you would be charged in the USA? And why?"
Beats me. Would you like me to recreate the same emergency conditions for you to find out?
"Yes indeed, and it would bankrupt most of us."
Wouldn't your country come to the rescue?
"This is why travel insurance in Europe has 3 categories for medical
1) Europe - cheaper as the medical part is all covered for the 27 EU nations by agreement.
2) Rest of the World (exc USA) - to cover the cost of treatment if needed anywhere you go.
3) USA - makes the policy at least twice the price due to the exorbitant costs of healthcare in the USA."
That's OK, I'm sure you benefit greatly in your country from our costs.
Complain about this comment
Re #64 "I would hate to live constrained by a document written in the 18th Century, no matter how liberal it was at the time, and with a limited number of Amendments."
And we, Native Americans, cannot cease to be amazed by 'Europeans' who are willing to live under an unlimited, it seems, number of restrictions, imposed by both, their statist governments and a EUSSR superstate.
[No, I'm not alluding to those Britons who "never, never, never shall be slaves]
Complain about this comment
RomeStu wrote:
"As ever you throw in accusations of anti-Americanism whenever someone suggests that the US may not be perfect. Sad and rather insecure it looks to me."
Feel free to explain how her insulting remarks had anything to do with the topic at hand. Good luck.
Complain about this comment
"Yes indeed - you can be obese because you eat badly and do no exercise (apologies to the VERY VERY small percentage of fatties who have that special gene)"
Hi, RomeStu!
So how are healty lean&mean Brits and Italians doing in Vancouver?
[You don't have to do flips, and pass gates, etc. with you teeth, after all]
Complain about this comment
RomeStu wrote:
"As ever you throw in accusations of anti-Americanism whenever someone suggests that the US may not be perfect. Sad and rather insecure it looks to me."
Oh, and the only people here who by definition are "insecure" are the non-Americans that are desperately and arrogantly demanding that America adopt their health care system because it is so wonderful. How wonderful? Just ask yourselves.
Complain about this comment
RomeStu wrote:
if you look just next to the USA you see Cuba with a life expectancy of just a month or so less than the USA, but a health spend of only 4% of what the US spends.
And that's why perhaps so many Cuban doctors and nurses, given half a chance row, sail or swim (even fly) to Florida Keys.
What do they know that present day Romans obviously don't? :-)))
Complain about this comment
RomeStu wrote:
"1) - but are they happy with the amount of tax money that is spent, when a more cost-efficient system (single payer) would use less tax money. If it were my tax money, I'd be interested that it went on care not profit for hospitals."
Two separate issues for most Americans. You wish to combine the two to justify a NHS.
"2) - NHS is not "socialist" .... it is "socialised". Proposing something that is less right wing does not make it socialist. This is just more of the same misinformation. There are no socialists in the USA government, just some people who are less right-wing than others."
Right. :)
Complain about this comment
Here's wondering why all the people who can afford it (including quite a few British leaders) fly to U.S. if they need a medical care they cannot, it seems, get in Brazil, Canada, Cuba, China, EU, Russia, and even -horrible dictu! - United (?) Kingdom?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Complain about this comment
"There are no socialists in the USA government, just some people who are less right-wing than others."
Just as there are no socialists in EUSSR governments, just some people who are less communist than others.
Complain about this comment
Again, congrats to our Canadian friends&allies for winning gold in figure (dance) skating.
Although sorry for their loss in hockey (3:5) to U.S.
But perhaps not all is lost yet?
Complain about this comment
David Murrell wrote:
"RomeStu – It is a sad fact those that shout the loudest about how the USA is sooo much better than everywhere else are the ones who react quickest to any perceived criticism of their country."
Come again??? Have I been dreaming up all the non-Americans from your part of the world, including this site and this blog, telling us Americans how wonderful their NHS are while continually telling us Americans how inferior our system is? Must be, huh?
"It is also a shame that their default response to such perceived criticism is to shout anti-Americanism, usually followed by a personal insult."
No, the "insult" came in the remarks I responded to! Remarks that clearly had nothing to do with the topic! Remarks that by definition were obviously made to insult Americans!
"You would have thought that any country, especially one as powerful as the USA, would have been able to stand up to a little scrutiny."
We don't need non-Americans arrogantly making demands on how we should run our country in matters that have nothing to do with them!
"Also if the USA is so perfect, why are the very same posters who scream ant-Americanism so easily are the ones who seem to moan loudest about minor aspects of their own country."
The only person talking about perfection is you!
And if an American moans about his country it is *his right* as it is *his country!*
"Now I understand the patriotic urge to protect the country of ones birth, I am also enough of a realist to accept if I can see faults in my homeland, so can outsiders."
You don't get it, do you? Americans don't care how non-Americans think we should run our country, especially in matters that have absolutely nothing to do with them!
"As long as the criticism is measured and balanced I have no issue. It is also a shame that these little Americaners seem to hold no reserve in criticising the rest of the world, normally wholly inaccurately."
Gee, thank you for speaking for us Americans.
It is a rare American that will go out of his way to criticize another country for their citizen's right to freely choose how to run their own country, especially in things that have nothing to do with them. That includes this site and this blog.
Complain about this comment
Ref 82/76, RomeStu, UKWales
Calls of anti-Americanism are manifestations of immaturity when someone doesn't have a valid argument to present. Just ignore them and rest assured that many of us appreciate the constructive criticisms and suggestions you all make.
Unfortunately, ideology, complacency, fear of what some regard as "foreign" concepts, the conviction that our systems and services are the best in the world and that any changes, no matter how benign, will destroy what can not possibly be improved, the pervasive influence of big business on public opinion and policy-making, greed and political opportunism are impediments that are simply too powerful to overcome.
Complain about this comment
1984Reject wrote:
"The reason that the average US citizen is so against any perceived ‘socialist’ solution is because America is only five or so generations away from the country being built and populated by pioneers. The mindset of their very recent forefathers would have been survival of the fittest, which is understandable in the hostile conditions that were undoubtedly endured at the time. However this self-preservation (or selfish) psyche is still prevalent and the analogy with the roulette game in an earlier post (#22) summed it up for me. The average indigenous US citizen will do what is best for themselves. End of."
You don't know us as well as you think you do.
A person being independent doesn't equal being "selfish."
Complain about this comment
Allen – Thanks for proving my post 80 so succinctly.
Yes the citizens of the USA are normally called Americans. Looking at the Democrat proposals they have never reached the socialised (note not socialist) levels imposed by the NHS. Politically outside the US the Democrats are regarded as being a centre right party, their aspirations and ideology doesn’t match the political will that formed the NHS.
Are people defeatist because they don’t do what I want? No, I think I made it relatively clear:
"Also I am slightly disappointed at the defeatist nature of some of the US posters here, the US is too big, the population too big, the government too incompetent to affect meaningful change, so the status quo, which appears not to be working, should be left as it is. The US is still the world powerhouse, your military and government are trusted to partially police the world."
To clarify some posters, including your good self, have intimated that the US is too big to cope with the change being suggested, so rather than try they would rather continue with a status quo, even they acknowledge doesn’t work. Sounds pretty defeatist to me.
So you agree that “About the only thing America wishes to teach in that capacity is democracy”, as I understood it American style democracy is your political system. I assume you believe that this political system is a success. Since we appear to be agreeing and the statement you seem to have taken issue with never once mentioned health care, as I don’t regard health care as a political system, what exactly should I stop?
And I note that I have been raised up as the spoke person for all socialists, how you honour me. I am not sure that most socialists would agree with you. Have I ever stated that I would disagree with America if it addressed something, say healthcare, that needed addressing? I don’t believe so, indeed I was actually advocating getting past the party politics and addressing that very subject.
As for wanting corporations out of business, why on Earth would I want that? I work in the City, City of London that is, the second biggest financial market in the world, for a massive brokerage house. We deal with greedy, self service corporations every day, without them I wouldn’t be employed. Wanting to see them destroyed would be illogical, actually I see them as a vital part of society. I work with people that make your views seem as the worst kind of limp wrested liberalism, people who want complete unshackled capitalism.
Actually as socialists go I am a rather poor one, I sacrificed many of my principles to the altar of mammon many years ago. Personally I believe that corporations, especially financial monoliths work best under tighter regulation, since it concentrates their imaginations on how to work round these restrictions rather than riskier ways of making a profit. I also do not believe that governments should ever be beholden to them, however, as I have voiced previously on these boards, I believe the day of the national government is coming to an end and the day of corporate state may arrive within my life time.
“You are doing plenty of distorting yourself.” Sorry is that ‘you’ socialists in general, or me in particular. If it is directed at me personally please supply some evidence to back up that spurious accusation.
“Considering this country has accomplished more in its relatively short history than any other country that has ever existed I think it has served us just fine.” Could you quantify that statement, because it seems on face both vague and inaccurate? While America may have done things technologically impossible in an earlier age, it is not the first world superpower, economically or militarily. I believe Rome was slightly more successful, for instance in promoting its political system further in a shorter time period, we will have to wait and see if America can compete with say Rome on lasting influence on the world.
For their day and age the Founding Fathers were very liberal, basing their ideas on those most liberal ideas of the time. Times change and I would like to think if they had been alive long enough their views would have changed with them. Oh, and yes at that point in history their views bearing arms (which means bearing weapons, not just guns – strange how certain Americans only read that statement one way) was very liberal.
As for reading the whole Constitution, why on Earth would, have you read the French Constitution? I leave to those who claim knowledge and understanding to offer opinion and base my responses on that opinion. Though I must ask if it is so amendable why the difficulty with consolidating welfare with the idea of health care.
And I have never visited America, let a lone lived there. I apologise if I ever gave such an impression, I assumed everyone knew that I was a Brit!
One thing I will agree with you on, this liberal does find it difficult to believe in basic and timeless morals, with a few exceptions such as it is wrong to kill someone else (which is why I am adverse to capital punishment in all forms) I believe that morals move and change with time. At one point it was morally acceptable to own slaves, to physically assault your wife, to force people of certain ethnicities to live as second class people, morality has changed.
Personally since I have ditched chunks of the hypocritical Christian morality, which seems to me devoted to a sense of guilt, I have found this liberal has been much happier. As long as my actions don’t deliberately hurt someone else, I see little reason to restrict myself – Maybe you should try it is very emancipating!
Complain about this comment
Denmark defeating UK?
In CURLING?
PHHHLLLEEEASE!!!
Complain about this comment
To AllenT2
If someone posts:
"The US government is too incompetent to affect meaningful change and is a morally corrupt system. It is incapable of operating at the same level of efficiency as those of other developed nations."
This statment and the motivation of the person who supplied it could be: disrespectful, unpatriotic, anti-American ,respectful, patriotic, or pro-American.
As the arbiter of anti-Americanism, spokesman for most Americans and interpreter of the constitution, which do you feel best describe this statement and why?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
There is an excellent and thought provoking article in the Op-ed section of todays New York Times, The Narcissus Society by Roger Cohen, that illuminates much of what is being discussed in this thread.
AllenT2 - Why do you dislike hearing others points of view unless they co-incide with yours? Particularly if the proponent is not an American? This is, after all, a BBC site, and by default there are bound to be British and European readers here, as well as Americans. I have not seen anyone dictating that the health care changes proposed for the States should be run on NHS, Canadian, Japanese or any other, lines. Rather that the best of all of these should be examined to see if they fit the type of system that might be appropriate for the US. By inference, the worst should be eliminated in the same way.
The opponents of Obamas plans keep using the word 'choice' - that to have a government plan in place would take 'choice' away. In fact, the opposite would be true. Private health care will always exist, as it does in Europe, but basic and adequate care available to everyone at the point of need. You choose.
The lack of choice is in where and how a small proportion of everyones tax dollars would be used to support everyone. And that is where I see a small-minded minority dissenting. Why, they seem to ask, should I support some feckless, possibly illegal individual? You would certainly support a few in such a huge nation, but also people who lead blameless lives too - and who are we to make that judgement anyway? These are people who are ill, helpless. It could be me or you on the breadline, and it would be a comfort to know that when I am in work I can afford the taxes to help others, and if I am not, that someone else out there will see me through a bad patch. Walking in someone elses shoes for a while is a good thing.
Complain about this comment
Allen – For the last time if you don’t like horrible foreigners discussing America, don’t come to our websites looking for comments. We Brits have the *right* to discuss the points raised on *our* website. Since I have spelt this out for you at least twice I feel irked that I should have to point out that B R I T I S H spells out British not American, this is not the ABC website.
Apologies to everyone who is not British, I am not trying to say that only the British can comment here, but it is annoying to read that as someone who pays for this website I apparently don’t have the right to comment here.
I also thought under the American Constitution that free speech was protected, I can see in America a foreigner might be constrained, but effectively Allen you are the foreigner, as this is a British domain (.co.uk), so you have to abide by our idea of free speech – so basically old chum, put up or shut up, the choice is yours.
Complain about this comment
What the Democrats will have to give up on their side is the so called public option which would tax everyone to pay for anyone who can't afford the best medical care available including illegal aliens.
I believe this is incorrect on at least two counts.
First, the Democrats have already given up on the public option.
Second, it wouldn't involve any tax. It would be a government insurance policy that you could buy, so only the policyholders would pay. The reason for having it, of course, is that it would provide competition in an otherwise somewhat carteised market, forcing the insurance companies to hold their prices down and offer better service.
Finally, your point about illegal aliens requires evidential backing before it should be accepted.
On the other hand, Douglas Feith
with a universal single-payer public option
is also wrong: single payer is where healthcare is paid for (but not necessarily directly provided) by government from taxation, and is rather more radical than the public option, though not as radical as the UK NHS, where medical staff are government employees.
This error-correction service was provided without any charge on American taxpayers.
Complain about this comment
Ref 98, David
The irony is that the original healthcare reform proposed by the Democrats, which included what we refer to as a public option, used regulated private insurance companies to manage the system. In effect, it was a carbon copy of the Civil Service healthcare plan. So much for socialism!
Complain about this comment
64. David Murrell:
"Also I am slightly disappointed at the defeatist nature of some of the US posters here, the US is too big, the population too big, the government too incompetent to affect meaningful change, so the status quo, which appears not to be working, should be left as it is. "
*************
First, it's not "defeatist" to not want a large, federal bureaucracy takeover of health care. It's realistic, in contrast with the fantasy being peddled of a nirvhana that will be exist once the corporations have been eliminated completely.
In fact, a truly American solution would involve autonomy and innovation. That this fact is lost on Obama attests to his own lack of alignment with American values. If you want to see an ideologue completely out of touch with Americans, think Bush and Iraq, then Obama and his vision of health care.
And the claim that those who oppose Obama's ideas want health care to remain "as it is" is always puzzling. There are many ideas for reform. Unfortunately, the democrats have been the party of "No Thanks", ignoring many stakeholders, which hasn't turned out too well for them.
Another way of thinking about it would be to ask oneself how distasteful are Obama's proposals that people would prefer the system to remain as it is rather than implement them?
Complain about this comment
Your article states it very well - "the president badly needs something that either looks like a victory or.....something that allows him to paint the Republicans as the bad guys." No mention of the American people. Maybe in England the crown and country come first but in this country, sir, America is constructed to reflect the needs of the people not the president's need for a victory. Got it? Therein lies the problem - the perspective that somehow the government in America should become like England or France or any other country that has chosen socialism as the best and only fair system.I don't think, now that the attention of the American people has been piqued, that the majority want to turn into Europe. Never mind the issue. Debate that all you want - the basic principle of America's founding is rooted in the individual and what he can do for himself, not what the country can do for him. Spare me, if you can, the reminder that some do actually need assistance. Those who claim they need assistance are approaching unsustainable levels.
Complain about this comment
I think it's time we had some 'full disclosure' here from some if those who insist that the current US health insurance system is perfectly OK fir everybody. I have a strong suspicion that at least one or two may be ex-US military, who, I gather, contribute to their health care and insurance little more in a year than most Americans pay in a month.
If (as I have read more than once), people may now have to pay (thanks to increasing premiums (why. btw? What exactly has changed in the last 12 months except for insurance companies wanting, seemingly, to make everyone pay for increased costs of covering 'pre-existing conditions some time in the future?) 1000 dollars or more per month, isn't that a terrible financial burden?
That's far more than it costs me to eat, and more than it costs me to rent my central-ish London flat. And this at a time when a young friend is working longer hours, with twice as much responsibility in San Fransisco as he did two years ago, for the same pay and hardly any holiday. And when a very large number of working people are earning no more, or less, than they did ten years ago,
As usual, this debate has got stuck in the same old slogans yet again. Whatever happens, half the US population will be against any reform at all; and we will not hear very much from the people most in need of it.
Good luck to you all . . .
Complain about this comment
AllenT: Try to understand the image of America and Americans that is held here. Defending America is, oh, so American. Ditto for preferring American systems. Don't even mention American values, which seem to be limited in many people's minds to guns, religion and abortion.
The concepts of independence and individual rights? Quaint and again, oh, so American. (What is it with these Americans who cling to their ideas of independence and individual rights?)
What can you say about people who equate Libertarianism with selfishness? Is it even worth having a debate? Can they ever really get their arms around it? I wonder. Ditto for capitalism.
But I do love that the concept of free speech raises its head whenever someone gets called out on their attitudes toward the US.
Complain about this comment
@Mark: Since the cheese debate was relatively mild (pardon the pun), I guess you needed to toss some raw meat back in the cage.
All: Since the profits of insurance companies have been brought into this discussion repeatedly (e.g. GLP @ 54) I think it's important to provide some additional material for you to chew on (sorry, no cheese here).
Most folks presume that corporations focus on profit to the exclusion of everything else because their Board of Directors (BoD) and corporate officers are heartless, greedy unmentionables who would run over their own grandmothers to make another dollar. That's a popular picture, but it is a lie. Confronting it is essential to getting to an accurate picture of the problems we are dealing with in this space, as well as others.
We know, of course, that health insurance providers are corporate entities, invested in mostly by mutual funds, who are other corporate entities. We deal with at least two layers of corporate entities here. Now you and I expect that mutual-fund staffers to be "humane" about their management of our funds, just as we expect the health insurance corporation to be "humane" about their administration of insurance. What would you say if they were instructed by the law not to be? Do I have your attention now?
Each corporation in America is incorporated in one state or another. Each state has its own laws of incorporation. A corporation that is incorporated in Delaware, for example, must follow the laws of the state of Delaware. Most state laws of incorporation read much the same way: they require the BoD and corporate officers to make all decisions to maximize return to shareholders. This was originally done to ensure that shareholder money wasn't wasted on frivolity by the BoD and corporate officers. However, that use of the word "all" also means that the BoD and officers have no option to be "humane" if it doesn't also maximize returns to shareholders.
This may sound like legal hair-splitting, but that kind of hair-splitting is how attorneys "aggressively representing the interests of their clients" win their cases and make their cash. Could an attorney make some cash by going after a corporation that was NOT making every decision to maximize shareholder return? Sure they could. Have they? Since I'm not the first person to write about this, I pretty well suspect someone's already done it (probably several times).
Certainly an individual BoD or set of corporate officers can and do use this language to their own benefit as well, but it has to be understood by everyone here that even if they DON'T want to use it in this fashion, there's a powerful legal incentive to "err on the side of caution". That's a significant driver behind all this that most folks just don't recognize.
There's an unwritten driver as well. As we invest our monies in those mutual funds, we expect the fund managers to maximize our returns. Their returns have to be attractive to us, or we don't invest. Those fund managers investing in a corporation also expect the corporation to maximize their returns. In order to survive, the corporation has to be attractive to investors. This need for "attractive" returns forces corporate policies and actions to focus on being "attractive", not on being "humane. Therefore, in our quest to maximize the growth of our individual investment funds, we actually set the stage for some of the heartlessness of our corporate entities. It's not what we intend, of course, but "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"...
It seems to me that part of the solution to this and other problems may be a restructuring of the laws of incorporation to tighten up the threshold for legal action regarding return to shareholders, to prevent creating the legal climate that sustains heartlessness. Another part may also be for those of us who invest to begin looking for fund managers who in turn look for corporations committed to taking care of people as well as maximizing returns. This is very imprecise, but I hope you get the idea. I don't think the Government can ride to the rescue here.
For those of us who live here, we have to remember that regardless of which directions we choose, folks will suffer who would not otherwise have suffered, and folks will die who otherwise wouldn't have died, and treasure will be wasted that otherwise would not have been wasted. The responsibility confronting us as citizens is profound; there is therefore NO room for emotional handwringing, or demonization, or other childish action. Let us be ruthless in our pursuit of facts, rigorous in application of logic, disciplined in the management of our emotions, charitable toward the thoughts and intentions of others, and above all courageous in our decisions. Then we'll be able to take satisfaction out of doing the best possible with what's offered to us in this situation.
Regards,
Arclight
PPS Thanks to those who showed me where to find guidance on HTML. You've created a monster
Complain about this comment
#107 Mike Smith
"Maybe in England the crown and country come first but in this country, sir, America is constructed to reflect the needs of the people not the president's need for a victory. Got it?"
And you mean the UK - not England. England became part of the UK in 1800 - You have 210 years of history to catch up on ...
"Therein lies the problem - the perspective that somehow the government in America should become like England or France or any other country that has chosen socialism as the best and only fair system."
Neither the UK and France have "chosen socialism". This is absurd. Do you actually believe this ?
"I don't think, now that the attention of the American people has been piqued, that the majority want to turn into Europe. "
If the majority want the US to turn into Europe, then it should that's just called democracy, isn't it ?
"Never mind the issue. Debate that all you want - the basic principle of America's founding is rooted in the individual and what he can do for himself, not what the country can do for him."
Using this argument, you can justify not paying any taxes at all. But that's okay. But if your house starts burning, don't expect a fire crew to turn up.
Complain about this comment
108. squirrelist:
"I think it's time we had some 'full disclosure' here from some if those who insist that the current US health insurance system is perfectly OK fir everybody. "
*************
Perfectly OK for everybody or just better for most than what Obama is proposing? Again, the problem is not that everybody wants the status quo. It's that Obama's proposals aren't attractive to enough people.
In the interest of disclosure, how many would oppose any option that involves (a) Republican proposals, (b) corporations, (b) profits or (c) state's autonomy? In other words, how many people aren't truly interested in reform but rather in reform as defined by Obama and Obama only.
Complain about this comment
108. squirrelist:
"If (as I have read more than once), people may now have to pay (thanks to increasing premiums (why. btw? What exactly has changed in the last 12 months except for insurance companies wanting, seemingly, to make everyone pay for increased costs of covering 'pre-existing conditions some time in the future?) 1000 dollars or more per month, isn't that a terrible financial burden?"
******************
Doctors can pay $10,000 per month for malpractice insurance. I don't see anyone concerned about their burden. Their problem? Republicans are proposing their fix, and we know how that goes.
Complain about this comment
Ref 107, Mike Smith
"Debate that all you want - the basic principle of America's founding is rooted in the individual and what he can do for himself, not what the country can do for him."
In my opinion, personal responsibility is the key to success and personal security. I believe it includes decisions we make from childhood to retirement, including pursuing a formal education, finding and keeping a good job, working hard, providing for our families, teaching our children the difference between right and wrong, abiding by established laws and ordinances, saving to make sure we can send our children to college and enjoy a comfortable retirement...and contributing to our community, our society and our country.
There is nothing in our Constitution, our values or our religious beliefs that suggest collective responsibility is evil. Caring for our fellow citizens, particularly for those that for a variety of reasons do not have the education, the financial means or the health to fend for themselves is not a socialist concept; it is a moral and human responsibility and there is nothing wrong with that.
The "liberals" that are trying to correct flaws in some of our systems are not trying to transform the USA into a moder-day Europe, we simply want to improve systems that are not working as well as they should; we want to make sure every American has a job, can get a good education, and has access to affordable and adequate healthcare. If that is socialism, so be it...but if you can find something in Karl Marx's Doctrine that suggests using regulated private insurance colmpanies to manage healthcare or any other government program please let me know, I would love to read it.
Complain about this comment
Andrea – The defeatists I speak of, of which I do not count you a member, rather than advocate an alternative simply state what can’t be done. Surely if things are broken they need to be fixed?
I have heard of an alternative where states individually offer their own system, which apparently some already do, which would be a start.
I am not against a conservative counter position to the current proposals, despite what some may claim on my behalf (surprising what some people think they know about me from a few posts, including suggestion that I live in the US), I would prefer just to hear some of them. I know I could trawl through the internet to find these, but since the only trawling I normally do for Democrat ideas is on this website, I fail to see why I should.
Everyone else – If I was so anti-American, why would I waste my time on this board, and I can assure you it is a waste (just ask my boss). I have grown bored with having to say that I don’t dislike America or Americans. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with everything every American says. For one thing, not all of you Americans can agree, so by agreeing with one, I will disagree with another. For another, it seems some Americans can post whatever prejudiced tosh about Europe, the EU and Britain, thinking they are both amusing and can do so with impunity.
I fail to see how suggesting that the US health care system, compared to the rest of the world, needs modernising compares in the slightest against comments like EUSSR. I can only assume the posters in question don’t know what R stands for, since the UK, Netherlands and Sweden are all monarchies. If we Brits, Dutch and Swedes are expected to suffer such nonsense, why do some Americans get so offended when we ask questions on a European website (as someone said we Brits have a song that says we will never be slaves, though I think that someone thinks it comes from the National Anthem, rather than Rule Britannia)?
Complain about this comment
110 arclightt
Your excellent analysis of the laws governing corporations and the legal obligation fo them to maximise benefits for shareholders should be enough to convince anyone that healthcare is not best served by the current system in the USA - and by this I include not just insurance companies and hospitals, but also ambulance-chasing lawyers and exaggerated payments in malpractice suits.
Total reform is necessary, and it would help to begin at the simple point that adequate basic healthcare at a reasonable cost should be available to all as a basic human right.
From there you decide whether an NHS-style socialised program or a single-payer public insurance system would be better .... or some new variant.
But without the absolute agreement that healthcare is a basic human right in a civilised society there can be no start.
Complain about this comment
NPR has an interesting piece on the billions wasted as a result of Medicare fraud. It highlights the difficulty of chasing criminals into different states with differing laws, and it suggests that the government could learn from private insurers, which examine their claims more carefully.
Good for Obama for putting more money toward fraud detection. Still, it does not inspire confidence in the federal government.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123568789
Complain about this comment
Some of the feedback was quite nice, thanks and I read it all.
Who are these uninsured and how have they been left out of the US system of healthcare? Now, as you all know, for any emergency go to an emergency room in any hospital in the US and you can not be denied care. True, they will have you out quickly, but only after you're deemed fit. They will try and work out a payment plan or it's on the hospital (or rest of us who use the hospital to pick up the bill). Also, many tax dollars are spent on Medicare and Medicaid...isn't that enough healthcare? Also, the system is going broke and I'm not sure what the point of making a larger system of healthcare, overseen or run by the government improves this problem?
It is my feeling that individuals who have the ability must earn these benefits, not be given them. Americans were told that Medicare and Medicaid would fix all of this. Next, we're told this plan or that plan will fix it all...my guess is that even if Obamacare is passed exactly how Obama wants it someone will come along and want more and more. Socialism seems a game with no end. Don't get me wrong, not all social programs are evil or even bad, but program upon program and there will never be an end. Who pays and how any society can carry the costs of ensuring all reasonably seems folly.
Why is money taken from me to support someone else? Is that right and correct? Taxes and money are important things, they represent hard work done and as my life is finite I can only work and therefore gain so much. Is it right or just to have a portion taken from me for this or that government program, with no real accountability? If programs fail who is blamed? I can't recall the last incompetent high level government worker fired.
And Americans, it wasn't meant to be like this. The reason we accomplished so much is not because our government was so much better or wiser or whatever, it's because we haven't been put upon by our government.
Natural law, as supported by the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution assure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (read property) and these laws of how to treat people fairly come not from government, but from God i.e. government can not change them, ever. What the "new" rights proposed by FDR, LBJ, BHO offer is exactly the opposite, freedom from wants, freedom from worries, freedom from freedom? The difference is that the Natural Law freedoms were endowed by our creator and the new freedoms were "given" to us at large cost by our government who has a strange way of involving itself in all of these supposed "freedoms".
Truth be told, as an American you are not owed and therefore do not owe anything to anyone else. You make your own destiny and form your own life free of interference (naturally, as long as you do not intrude on any else's freedoms). Some win, some lose, some are lucky, others not, but if the system is granting all equal rights to accomplish what they will, then the system worked. I know this is a stark difference to what people think in other places, but it is what it is and has created a nation of power and wealth.
The idea of having no right to demand from the very rich or even moderately rich or from my neighbor anything is important.
It hasn't exactly been like this for some time in the US, and we have gravitated at some kind of middle ground between individualism and socialism.
Hopefully, this will help those who are looking from the outside to understand what is happening in America. It is an important step deciding to add yet another government run "freedom"...and such a big decision should not be taken lightly. Therefore, I am glad Americans have come out become very active in letting those in power know their wishes, whatever they may be.
Complain about this comment
115. David Murrell: Is it really that hard to understand why Americans might take offense at suggestions that theirs should be a system modeled on another country's? How different is it than, say, the reaction of a French person to an American's suggestion that they would be better served if only they worked more hours? Excuse our bristling.
Asking an American to accept bigger government can be as anathema to him as asking a French person to embrace capitalism. It shows an ignorance of underlying values. Add to that the suggestion that if only he weren't so [lazy, socialist, selfish, greedy, ignorant, brainwashed...] he would be able to see the merits of capitalism.
Then throw in the use of statistics that demonstrate the merits of capitalism but ignore their underlying apples and oranges comparisons. Add to that an incomprehension that the French may actually prefer their system and be quite happy with it.
To truly understand Americans, you can start by pondering their deeply ingrained independence and anti-government sentiments. It is the root of our dilemma. I can assure you that were you to approach opposition to Obama's health care from this perspective, you'd not be having as much difficulty understanding it.
Complain about this comment
#116. RomeStu
#110 arclightt
Absolutely the nail/head! Two great posts.
I can honestly say, that the majority of my friends, co-workers, are not anti-health care for all. Personally, I would love to see at least, a wellness/preventative program for all to include standard annual tests/screenings/pre/postnatal - we know that disease found early is most treatable & cost effective. I just wonder if a Government plan taken in smaller steps i.e. the tests/screenings, would be more acceptable/digested?
Just rambling simplistic thoughts which have been many regarding this ongoing debate.
Complain about this comment
"Obama’s Way: Pretend It, Demagogue It, Dictate It.
HealthCare Summit - A Stepping Stone Towards 'Reconciliation'
Perhaps, In A Perverse Way, The Best Thing That Can Happen To The Republican Party."
Those are the headings; wait for the analysis and conclusions.
They go on, "President Obama's Healthcare Summit is a process for him, is not an end. He will pretend, take the failure that he expects - and desires - and use it to run all the way to 'reconciliation' with it."
These are the pre-emptive news for Friday 26th, read it all at,
http://www.robbingamerica.com
Complain about this comment
"we will have to wait and see if America can compete with say Rome on lasting influence on the world."
Look no further than at the list of Nobel prize winners in science and medicine in the last 100 years and the names and nationalities of major patent holders without which you would not have a modern science&technology-based civilization as we know it today.
Complain about this comment
ref #115
David I don't think you are anti-amrican, anti Republican or Tea party perhaps.
But what Andrea and I have pointed out is the inefiecny of the Federal goverment which is something healthcare proponents refuse to acknowledge.
If they were going to sub out the management like a GSA bid I would be more receptive.
BTW Obama administration sole sourced the PR on healthcare to Axelrod's old firm where are all the Cheney bashers on that?
Complain about this comment
Re A comment :"Never mind the issue. Debate that all you want - the basic principle of America's founding is rooted in the individual and what he can do for himself, not what the country can do for him."
A replly: Using this argument, you can justify not paying any taxes at all.
My personal experience indicates that in countries like Greece and Italy not paying taxes is national sport and a matter of personal pride.
[not that Germany seems to be far behind, in view of the latest revelations]
Complain about this comment
It is difficult to think that anything worthwhile will make it through the US congress. Watching the congress over the past year has seen nothing but the obvious purchasing of votes by big business and banking. The influence of money in US politics and the unbelieveable decision of the Supreme Court to extend rights to corporations will result in nothing but more corruption and fraud at the corporate level. No matter how well-intentioned, the congress will corrupt any legislation before it. The Republicans continue to play their political games while the US falls behind the rest of the world. They wrap themsevles in the flag but it is lined with money....a gift from some corporation or bank. Until the influence of big business is removed from the process, corruption will continue, fraud will be the primary way of government business, the taypayers will subsidize the rich and no real progress will be made by the general population of citizens. As many compare the Afghan war with the war in Viet Nam, so the American congress resembles the later days of the Roman Senate.....the future is predictable....the barbarians wait with anticipation.
Complain about this comment
The university where I work swapped medical insurers last October, because our previous provider told us in August --one month before Open Enrollment (annual contract renewal)-- that they were increasing their rates by 28%.
Last year they had hiked it 18%
Then there was the large rate hike of the year before...
And the year before...
SO - we entered a contract with an insurance provider that bragged of a mere 12% rate hike in '09. We expect the hike will be higher in '10 (unless something gets regulated.)
Wow. You know, I could really use a 28% pay increase.
Could I get a 28% pay increase? No?
Well, that's okay. I'll just settle for 12%, then.
Unfortunately, I didn't get a pay increase this year. Or last year.
Heck - the University President gave himself a pay CUT.
My 'Cost of Living' may be increasing, but so are the University's overhead expenses...
What a terrible shame. I realize that European Wines and Cheeses may be better than ours... Maybe. ;-) Unfortunately, I can't afford it, so I'll just settle for my Kraft brand orange cheddar. I hear Target has a generic 'wine in a box' that might fit my tiny family budget...
Ah -- Maybe sometime we'll indulge in some Sam Adams and a Casa Blanca cheese dip (ahem... er.. "Fondue"). Hmmm.... Tasty and Domestic. Now, THAT sounds like a great Memorial Day BBQ. The snow ought to melt off by then - right?
Complain about this comment
121. JG1000: This is a stunt, and everybody knows it. Honestly, if I were a Republican official, I'd not attend. Obama brings the TV cameras in -- and talks with Republicans -- when it suits him.
He hasn't taken on anybody -- in his own party, special interests, etc., -- but now he's Mr. Tough Guy with Republicans. A little coliseum sport for his supporters.
By the way, have the governors been invited?
Complain about this comment
Andrea – Goodness the French have turned their backs on Capitalism!! I must admit over this side of the Atlantic we hadn’t noticed.
I am guessing that your list of unacceptable suggestions to a Frenchman was slightly ironic, since as a Brit I have been called ignorant, brainwashed and socialist as well as a few other names by American posters. I believe I may have called certain Americans conservative, and after being called a liar by a certain American I did with greater justification call him it back, but mysteriously while his post was left unchallenged mine was referred, a triumph for free speech.
Magic – While we may disagree on a few, possibly fundamental, points like Andrea I would not add you to the list of dismissive Americans. Indeed, when asked you explained to me your options and beliefs regarding health care reform. I don’t recall, for instance you making snide comments about European countries simply to score points. I have more of an issue with those American posters, the ones that have a lot to say, but never actually include any actual meaningful content. I am guessing you and they know who I mean.
Complain about this comment
My Dentist is Polish. Just had my teeth cleaned last week. I pay $120/yr/person for "Dental Insurance" (basic cleanings). I've never had a cavity.
A while back, I had an orthodontist from India. He did my braces & pulled my teeth straight. But that was back in the 80's, when insurance was cheap.
These days, I'm just hoping my kids will have natural teeth perfectly. Otherwise, I'll have to break out clothes hangar and a soldering gun...
BTW - I love the Winter Olympics. Unfortunately, I couldn't watch it. I don't have cable & my crappy antenna doesn't get NBC. Tried to stream it, but my home computer's too old. Oh well. I hear we got lots of medals...? Wish I could've seen that Snowboarding move. Dang. I wonder who covers Shaun White's medical insurance...
Complain about this comment
# 122. powermeerkat wrote:
"Look no further than at the list of Nobel prize winners in science and medicine in the last 100 years and the names and nationalities of major patent holders without which you would not have a modern science&technology-based civilization as we know it today."
Your mistake is in assuming that the inventions and discoveries by Americans from the last 100 years would not have been made had America not existed. Rubbish. If America had not invented/discovered these inventions/discoveries, then somebody else would have.
I'd also point out that the inventions and discoveries from the last 100 years were made on the shoulders of the inventions and discoveries of the previous 3000 years.
Complain about this comment
Question: Have the moderators gone on strike or just a very long lunch an hour to review a post seems a tad excessive!
Complain about this comment
#124 powermeerkat
"My personal experience indicates that in countries like Greece and Italy not paying taxes is national sport and a matter of personal pride.
[not that Germany seems to be far behind, in view of the latest revelations].
The idea that Italians and Greeks do not pay taxes is an appeal to stereotypes - obviously they do pay taxes. As for Germany - what revelations ? Have all the Germans stopped paying taxes now ?
But my point still stands. Beating a patriotic chest, waving a flag and declaring that since America was founded on the idea that government was created to serve the individuals (which is kinda obvious and not such a revelation, nor is it uniquely American - many other countries got there before the US.) can be taken to an extreme and used to justify not paying any taxes at all.
If someone collapsed in the street, and appealed for aid, would you go to help ? Or would you refuse until you had an assurance that you were going to get paid for your efforts ?
Of course you would go over to help. It's human nature. We are, after all, pack animals and to go to the aid of another in your pack is, well, instinctive.
In a modern society, this instinct is expressed as taxation, with the money for taxation going to the fire department, or road maintenance, or whatever. The point is that you are giving over money for the good of the community and are not expecting anything in return.
So if you're okay with being taxed to pay for fire crews, or sewer maintenance, or clearing the roads of snow, or for the military - which you can all argue are reasonable reasons for being taxed - then how the heck can health care get left off the list ?
Question. If America was starting from a clean slate - with no health care system at all, public or private - then what would you like to see ? Same again or something different ? I am asking because after WW2 that is exactly the decision faced by the countries of Europe - and they all chose a variety of health care systems but - and this is the important point - they all chose systems that leave nobody out. The US is still using a health care system with its genesis from before the last two wars.
Complain about this comment
86. At 11:02am on 23 Feb 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
And we, Native Americans, cannot cease to be amazed by 'Europeans' who are willing to live under an unlimited, it seems, number of restrictions, imposed by both, their statist governments and a EUSSR superstate.
Interesting. Yesterday, you were claiming to be a Confederate, despite the fact that such a proclamation is still on the books as a treasonous offense. Today, you are claiming to be a Native American - or is it that famous/infamous "one sixteenth Indian blood" that gives one access to certain monetary and educational entitlements by way of reparations that you are suddenly so proud to announce?
Complain about this comment
128. David Murrell:
"Andrea – Goodness the French have turned their backs on Capitalism!! I must admit over this side of the Atlantic we hadn’t noticed."
What would I know? I am, after all, an American. Everyone looks like a Socialist to me.
"Magic – While we may disagree on a few, possibly fundamental, points like Andrea I would not add you to the list of dismissive Americans. "
My, the posters are dropping like flies off your list.
;-P
Complain about this comment
127. At 4:15pm on 23 Feb 2010, AndreaNY wrote:
Obama brings the TV cameras in -- and talks with Republicans -- when it suits him.
Really? Why don't you check the White House visitor logs to see how many Republican Senators and Representatives visit there on a regular basis. It is now, thanks to Obama transparency, a matter of public record.
And by the way, government, like business, can be run efficienty if quality controls are put in place. That's why Medicaid and Medicare are run more efficiently than most insurance companies. Their cost is high not because they are inefficient, but because Republicans won't let them negotiate lower prices for drugs and services like any other business.
Complain about this comment
I dare say this will get me tarred & feathered, but why is poor health care & schooling accepted in America for the less fortunate?.Your military is a black hole,it needs to be smaller & more efficient.How many boomers do you you need to commit suicide?.Can you not see what happened to Russia,with massive military & poor infrastructure at home =,down fall,orchestrated by you with the help of their pride.History is repeating its self again,against you,but with China this time in the drivers seat.Countries that are serious about economic progress (unless attacked)must recognize & avoid the futility of war.America, you must spend more on your Infrastructure get the economy right & all else will follow...
Complain about this comment
#128 David
Hope your day is more manageable?
I consider that most people who post here are regulars and many are well set in their opinions/politics/insults.
I would like to think that I have avoided any intentional nastiness? Actually, I think I'm a little too 'soft' for posting on this type of board, really - I come here more to read and learn!
I just wouldn't want my birth (UK) country/peoples judged by exchanges in such a forum as this, and ditto for my now adopted country the USA.
There are some well established stand-offs from both sides on here and I've read plenty of insults from both sides, too. Not very pleasant sometimes.
I would hope that such exchanges would be less contentious in person?
Complain about this comment
Wow …. Love the debate (excluding the xenophobia of course)
I trust we can all agree that healthcare is broken. The poorest can not afford insurance, the insurance companies can refuse (or even stop) insurance if you are ill or a bad risk, too much defensive medicine, insurance costs rising at a phenomenal rate. Given that this is happening in a free market (with the exception of some state legislation on insurance minimums) we could probably agree that the free market isn’t working in healthcare.
The problem is of course what to do, not a description of the problem. Could we agree that Medicare/aid be extended to cover the poor (and I assume we care about elevated disability and death in this group given the lack of access), could we agree that the Government be allowed to negotiate drug pricing from pharmaceutical companies (as the insurance companies do), could we agree that insurance companies should not be allowed to drop the sick (but shouldn’t the healthy be insured to balance up the risk), could we agree that we need to reduce the size of medical law suits (but if you need increased healthcare as a result of any injury, and can’t get insurance, how are you going to pay for it without significant damages)
It’s a difficult conundrum, and we probably need aspects from both ideologies to make this work, but it’s unlikely to happen in this partisan world.
Complain about this comment
Actually, philly mom, the wine in a box is quite good, especially the California wines like Vella. Franzia is good, as well. The whites and reds are the best, although the raspberry is good, too. Some people are quite snobbish about wine in a box, but this keeps the 5 liters of wine fresh, so you can continually savor it. Plus, it's easily portable and there's plenty to go around. Lol. Boxed wine is always appreciated at college parties, as an alternative to kegs, especially.
Also, I wanted to thrown in the Winter Olympics are awesome! Germany is right behind us in the medal count (3), so too close to call. Of course, some go by most golds and some go by most medals. I usually look at the most medal count. Shaun White is a funny guy, always in a great mood and having fun. His snowboarding was higher than anyone else (40 some feet about the halfpipe) and he did some crazy trick no one else does (McTwist or something).
Canada lost the hockey game to USA, which was huge, but this does not take them out of the race. USA and Canada could face off for the gold medal final- although there is much talk of Russia's team, as well. You never can tell what will happen. There is much rivalry there. The USA goalie is amazing- the main reason why we won. USA and Canada also play for women's hockey gold on Thursday, although they don't get as much publicity.
Canada redeemed itself the day after the big hockey match with the Canadian pairs figure skaters winning the gold. Although the music was quite uninteresting and slow, their ice dancers were fabulous and deserved the prize. USA and Russia followed 2nd and 3rd. Loved USA's team, dancing to Phantom of the Opera. The Russians were fun to watch, although not as technical.
The real winners of all of the games, though, are the athletes, whether they win a medal or not. It is amazing and awesome to see the games take place. I applaud all the athletes for their hard work and determination.
The Europeans are very impressive and have mostly dominated the slopes, though USA has done the best ever for us in alpine skiing this year. Many Europeans grow up on the slopes, so it is no wonder that they do so well, as it is natural.
Complain about this comment
Ref 132. The Toothbrush Man
"If America was starting from a clean slate - with no health care system at all, public or private - then what would you like to see ? Same again or something different?"
A substantial number of Republican conservatives and members of the John Birch Society, CPAC, and the Tea Party Movement want to go back to the pre-Teddy Roosevelt era - no federal income tax, no Social Security, MEDICARE, MEDICAID or any other federal government programs.
These are the folks that booed Glenn Beck and a couple of other politicians during the recent CPAC conference when they mentioned President Teddy Roosevelt or other subjects that are taboo to ultra-conservatives.
Obviously, not all conservatives share such radical convictions, but little by little the most extreme are finding their way into Washington with the help of Dick Armey, Rush Limbaugh and others. If their numbers rise to the point of being relevant in the political decision-making process...G_d help the USA!
Complain about this comment
Ref 127, AndreaNY
"He hasn't taken on anybody -- in his own party, special interests, etc., -- but now he's Mr. Tough Guy with Republicans. A little coliseum sport for his supporters."
The fact that Republicans were going to oppose healthcare reform was a given, but the reason the administration and the leadership in Congress were unable to send a bill to the White House for signature last year was not because of Republican opposition but because they didn't have the votes within the President's own party. It seems to me those renegades should be the ones at the head of the table...while they still have a job in Washington because if they think their cowardice will save their jobs they better think again.
Complain about this comment
Ref 126, Philly-Mom
"I hear Target has a generic 'wine in a box' that might fit my tiny family budget..."
Unless you are interested in buying over priced vinegar, save your money.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The misinformation in these posts is staggering.
1) The poor in this country are covered by Medicaid.
2) The only reason Americans don't outlive some other countries is due to death in car accidents and violent crime. Not something I blame our health insurance system for.
3) Education in not a right in this country. I have lived in rural areas that did not have a school system and we paid extra to go school in the nearest district.
4) For those that think we should trust our government with health insurance just look at our budget and debt and tell me if that is the work of a trustworthy government.
You cannot have a right to something that obligates someone else to provide it. That is slavery.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Re #113
"Doctors can pay $10,000 per month for malpractice insurance. I don't see anyone concerned about their burden. Their problem? Republicans are proposing their fix, and we know how that goes."
Andrea, I have physician-friends who pay $140,000.00 p/y for such an insurance.
One (man) is a anesthetist, another (woman) - a pediatrician.
People who cannot see a link between those exorbitant costs, defensive medicine (with thousands of unnecesary tests, Petscans, MRIs , etc.) and a cost of health insurance premiums never cease to amaze me.
Just like those who cannot see a connection between an insurance reform and a TORT reform.
Complain about this comment
Ref 123, Magic
"BTW Obama administration sole sourced the PR on healthcare to Axelrod's old firm where are all the Cheney bashers on that?"
That's an easy one to answer, the Obama Administration did not do such thing. In fact, the Federal Government did not contract Axelrod's old advertising firm (AKPD Message and Media)to develop the healthcare reform ads, the contract was negotiated by two Democratic coalitions called "Healthy Economy Now" and "Americans for Stable Quality Care".
Neither organization/coalition is bound by the bid rules that govern Federal government contracting.
Complain about this comment
"If America had not invented/discovered these inventions/discoveries, then somebody else would have."
But somehow somebody else hasn't, right?
Just as if Americans hadn't landed on the Moon, somebody else would have, right? And who, pray, might that be?
[If ifs and ans were pots and pans there'd be no work for tinkers]
Complain about this comment
Re#139
Lucy, it looks like we are the only ones here getting excited about (and actually watching) Vancouver Olympics.
Others getting more excited about routine sport games in Washington, D.C.
With mostly the same players, same (boring) routines, and the same results.
Complain about this comment
"This comment has been referred to the moderators"
Oops! I used a bad word to describe insurance companies for their evil 2.2% profit margin, the 35th highest industry in the US.
Nice catch censo..I mean mods. (I actually do think you guys do a good job. One of the reasons I like this blog is the mostly civil discourse.
Complain about this comment
#149
Hey, I'm watching the Games! And paying for all these late nights, too! I've even watched the Curling!
Do you think there has been a lot more "falling down" in these Olympics? Although I haven't seen anyone take a loss in the curling, yet!
Sounds very similar to the the Games in DC!
Complain about this comment
#144 csgators,
The misinformation in these posts is staggering.
Add to your list:
5) The U.S. has a higher infant mortality rate than most European countries.
Most European countries have a different definition on what constitutes a live birth when counting infant mortality. The U.S. counts every live birth while other countries exclude live births if they're not a certain length, weight, or if a baby is born so many weeks premature, they do not count as a live birth.
Complain about this comment
Ref 144#
"1) The poor in this country are covered by Medicaid." ... you actualy mean the destitute rather than the poor and even then they have to fall into a relevant category.
To quote from the Medicaid web site it "provides health insurance coverage to certain categories of low-income individuals, including children, pregnant women, parents of eligible children, and people with disabilities. Medicaid was created to help low-income individuals who fall into one of these eligibility categories pay for some or all of their medical bills."
This is hardly coverage for the poor!!!
Complain about this comment
#148 powermeerkat
"But somehow somebody else hasn't, right?"
America was first to invent/discover, that's all. It doesn't mean that nobody else wouldn't have invented/discovered had America not done so.
"Just as if Americans hadn't landed on the Moon, somebody else would have, right? And who, pray, might that be?"
I doubt any country would be so stupid as to send a man to the moon nowadays ! Heck, why go to the moon at all when it is far cheaper and a lot less riskier to use unmanned landers. Landing a man on the moon might be good for the national self-esteem, but it serves no purpose today.
As for your claim about the US having more Nobel prize winniers than anybody else - this is true. But per capita the US is #15, with Switzerland, Iceland, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Norway, UK, Ireland, Germany, Israel and the Netherlands are all above the US.
Complain about this comment
Re #133
Gavrielle, all U.S. citizens born in America are NATIVE Americans.
Current PC cliches/labels notwithstanding.
And no, I'm not white: my color is closest to pale cream. [as if it mattered]
And no, I'm not a Caucasian [no connection to Caucasus whatsover.]
And not a Yank [not being of Dutch extraction]
And most Indians, last time I checked, still lived in India.
As they always have.
And, finally I am not one of those believing they are entitled to anything.
Rather one of those who actually PAY a lot in taxes, so that others who pay hardly any (if anything) could take advantage of entitlements.
And get hooked on them.
Sorry about that.
Complain about this comment
153. At 7:52pm on 23 Feb 2010, SimonH wrote:
"To quote from the Medicaid web site it "provides health insurance coverage to certain categories of low-income individuals, including children, pregnant women, parents of eligible children, and people with disabilities. Medicaid was created to help low-income individuals who fall into one of these eligibility categories pay for some or all of their medical bills." "
Ok, I agree that you can be poor and not fall into one of those categories. But it also seems like if you do fall into one of those categories you should be able to get a job.
Complain about this comment
Re #154
Just like nobody would be that stupid as to send robots to Mars, deep space probes outside of our Solar system decades ago and put a Hubble space telescop in Earth's orbit. Or Create Internet and GPS.
Let alone make make them available to everybody. Right? Right.
BTW. How's your Galileo doing?
P.S. I agree that if we hadn't invented nuclear bomb first, Nazis would have.
Complain about this comment
I do so wish that people in this forum would stop reffering to "the healthcare system of Europe" as though there is one single system. Though it is true that socialised medicine is a part of every European country the way in which it is implemented is very different in each nation. Socialised medicine is also not a European phenomenon, it is part of every developed nation in the World. Except one of course.
Whom ever states that Obama is trying to copy some European system is also ignorant and uninformed. No system is perfect. Obama wants to use succesful parts of different systems and apply them to the American system in essence creating something entirely new, not a carbon copy of an already existing system.
Complain about this comment
Ref 156, csgators
To qualify for MEDICAID a COUPLE can not make more than $13,400 a year or $1,117 a month; and their total assets can not exceed $20,100.
Many are senior citizens, blind or disabled, or people who for a variety of reasons can not find employment that would allow them to pay rent, utilities, healthcare insurance and put food on the table. Many are single mothers with dependent children working as waitresses, maids and other low paying jobs. Not every poor person, or the destitute, are bums waiting for a handout. Many work, and most of those who don't are physically or mentally unable to do so.
Complain about this comment
Why not just mandate catastrophic & chronic insurance, and give a public option for the poor(people in the bottom two quintiles), seniors, and minors.
This would be less costly. The government should only pay for healthcare cost which will bankrupt people. The US government contrary to popular belief pays 47% of healthcare cost. This keeps people unsensitive to cost and leads to waste
I am a liberal, but even I know Obamacare will probably make things worse. Comprehensive insurance is the wrong way to go---- just cover catastrophic & chronic healthcare bills.....
Complain about this comment
csgators,
And that is the problem with Medicaid, it positions its self as for the poor, but a lot of poor people can't meet the requirements. In additon it is a state-led program. So stingy conservative states can be very particular in what they consider to be "poor".
Complain about this comment
@SaintDominick...
I meant to say "do NOT fall into..."
I have no problem with making sure poor kids see a doctor.
Complain about this comment
If this really is about health care for poor people why not propose an expansion of Medicaid? Why require people to get insurance at the point of a gun? Why add more regulaions onto an already heavliy regulated industry? Barney Franks regualtions didn't do anything good for the housing market.
Complain about this comment
Ref 163, csgators
Because the proposed reform is not intended to help the destitute who already have access to MEDICAID, but to millions of Americans who do not qualify for that program but who do not make enough to pay exhorbitant insurance premiums, high out of pocket expenses, or are affected by caps, pre-existing conditions, or rejected by insurance companies when the cost of treating chronic illnesses exceed what companies believe is reasonable.
Yes, the government should look into the possibility of modifying existing programs such as MEDICARE and MEDICAID instead of creating a new organization that is bound to have its own hierarchy and, more than likely, may duplicate what already exists. Expanding existing programs may be more economical and effective than creating a new behemoth.
emay be the way to go.
Complain about this comment
ref 164
The healthcare debate really is fascinating, it's very hard to pigeonhole people on this issue. I for one would support a low-level NHS type system before requiring all Americans to buy private health insurance. The current plan looks to me to be a simple power grab that will force Americans to buy a product they may not want. I am self-employed and have no coverage at all because I simply cannot as an individual get anything close to affordable. This is due to current regulation, not evil doctors and insurance companies. Forcing me to buy something I cannot afford is not a solution; it is simply going to force me to risk jail by not paying the fine (tax).
Complain about this comment
136. At 5:35pm on 23 Feb 2010, ukwales wrote:
I dare say this will get me tarred & feathered, but why is poor health care & schooling accepted in America for the less fortunate?.Your military is a black hole,it needs to be smaller & more efficient.
I'm not going to attack you, just going to point out that up until GWB and his mad dash into two wars, military expenditures were approximately 18% of the annual budget and falling. Now they are at 36% mostly because the Bush administration privatized many of the functions the military used to do for itself. Before now, there was never any need for "contractors" in the form of electricians or food service providers. The military did its own building or called in the Army Corp of Engineers. They may not have always gotten everything right, but they certainly did it in a more efficient and less costly manner. No soldier is going to get $150,000 a year for building a cheap shower point that will electrocute his fellow soldiers. He's more likely to get time in Leavenworth for, among other things, destroying government property. We invest a lot of money in training our soldiers. Losing one to something as stupid as a construction "accident" is expensive.
Can you not see what happened to Russia,with massive military & poor infrastructure at home =,down fall,orchestrated by you with the help of their pride.History is repeating its self again,against you,but with China this time in the drivers seat.Countries that are serious about economic progress (unless attacked)must recognize & avoid the futility of war.America, you must spend more on your Infrastructure get the economy right & all else will follow...
You're forgetting something. When the Soviet Union started out it was not a fully industrialized nation. Many of their earliest 5 year plans called for the building of modern facilities which did not previously exist. They were also hampered by the fact that the West did not give them access to much advanced technology, which slowed down their progress even further. The ruble couldn't even be traded, so that left them with having to use their natural resources to pay for whatever they couldn't make. I remember the group ABBA did a number of concert tours there way back when and as payment received pork bellies, which they then sold.
A lot of things went into the failure of the Soviet Union, not just military expenditures, which they could ill afford. America's GDP is currently $14 trillion a year. Even with our debt levels as high as they are, we are in no danger of defaulting. Our infrastructure might be weaker than we'd like, but it is nowhere near a state of imminent collapse. Have a little faith. We've come through much worse than this. Not just the Great Depression of the 1930s, but the Long Depression of 1873 which lasted 30 years, not to mention a civil war that killed 2 percent of the entire population and left the US (not counting the South) with an enormous war debt - expenditures near the end of the war topped $2 million a day!
I'm not saying everything is going to be sunshine and roses right away. In fact, I expect it to take at least 10 years before we are fully recovered. But ten years of hardship seems a fair price to pay for being so stupid as to elect a bunch of trickle down, cut taxes for the rich and start a couple of wars our children can pay for Republicans. Not that I ever voted for one of them. I'm not that gullible!
Complain about this comment
ref 155 powermeerkat
Relax, I was just twitting you for your poor choice of words. Though I noticed you didn't deny the treason charge. ;~)
Rather one of those who actually PAY a lot in taxes, so that others who pay hardly any (if anything) could take advantage of entitlements.
And get hooked on them.
Sometimes, life puts a gun to your head and you have to get hooked. Not everyone has the courage (I guess you'd call it moral fiber) to politely crawl away and die a slow, miserable death where the great and the good cannot see their suffering.
Sorry about that.
Why? You seem quite proud of the fact that you have little or no sympathy for anyone who doesn't pull themselves up by their bootstraps - even after you've take away their boots.
Complain about this comment
Health care is one of the tripod upon which the welbeing of the nation state is measured.Other are the fundamental human right and shelter.The role of an all inclusive health care plan in usa cannot be over emphasized.It is a program that trnsends boundaries and cut across political lenage,because it affect the lives of people they represent.
The present posture as been maintained by the Republican senators does not go down well with the public,where lives are been sacrificed at the altar of politics.
The benefits of the health care reform would help to stem the abetral increase in fees by the insurance agents and institute a new Insurance Rate Authority that would regulate the activity of the agencies.It would to lower cost and increase competition so that the peple would have a choice.The small business can now maintain a regular staff rather than hiring of temporal staff.
Complain about this comment
164. At 9:01pm on 23 Feb 2010, SaintDominick wrote:
"Yes, the government should look into the possibility of modifying existing programs such as MEDICARE and MEDICAID instead of creating a new organization that is bound to have its own hierarchy and, more than likely, may duplicate what already exists. Expanding existing programs may be more economical and effective than creating a new behemoth.
emay be the way to go."
I have been saying the same thing until I am blue in the face! Both on here (previous forum) and in discussions with friends, etc. And not one person has ever really acknowledged it as a viable idea!
As I said in an earlier post on this forum, I feel strongly re: small steps rather than giant steps
start with covering preventative/screenings/annual check ups, etc. lets see how it goes! and cover it all under the Medicare program do away with Medicaid all together, one program to cover all!
Complain about this comment
Gavrielle-laPoste.
Phew,I thought I was in for both barrels,there are Europeans who care for & about America,not for what they can get,but for what they have been given.
Strange but true...
Complain about this comment
170. At 10:07pm on 23 Feb 2010, ukwales wrote:
Phew,I thought I was in for both barrels,there are Europeans who care for & about America,not for what they can get,but for what they have been given.
Strange but true...
Not from me you won't. I don't do that kind of attack post unless it's required - or, I'm ashamed to say, in a really bad mood and need to snark.
And I can see you care about America, in the same way that I have quietly despaired over the future of Great Britain for many years. Are you aware that Brussels must be consulted on how your tickets for Olympic venues in London, paid for by British citizens, can be distributed? That sort of top down micromanagement of internal affairs in what is clearly a "local" issue is deeply disturbing.
Complain about this comment
#153 SimonH,
This is hardly coverage for the poor!!!
What would you call it? If you make less than $1,500/mnth you can qualify for not only medical assistance, but also food stamps and other benefits. There are also free health clinics and low income health insurance for the poor as well.
I have no problem expanding these programs to include more folks, but seriously, lets not pretend this aid is not there or helpful to those that need it.
Complain about this comment
#166 Gavrielle_LaPoste,
Contractors have been used since the Vietnam war for construction, maintenance, and logistical support. Bush did not start a new trend in this, he only enlarged the number of contractors.
Complain about this comment
" 136. At 5:35pm on 23 Feb 2010, ukwales wrote:
I dare say this will get me tarred & feathered, but why is poor health care & schooling accepted in America for the less fortunate?.Your military is a black hole,it needs to be smaller & more efficient.How many boomers do you you need to commit suicide?.Can you not see what happened to Russia,with massive military & poor infrastructure at home =,down fall,orchestrated by you with the help of their pride.History is repeating its self again,against you,but with China this time in the drivers seat.Countries that are serious about economic progress (unless attacked)must recognize & avoid the futility of war.America, you must spend more on your Infrastructure get the economy right & all else will follow..."
Tar & feathers coming...just kidding, but seriously, America does not have bad healthcare. The rigors our doctors and nurses must go through to practice healthcare are tops in the world. Drugs are at the forefront and general care overly good at diagnosis. Weaknesses are preventative care and costs. Much of the cost associated with healthcare is due to increasing age and need for healthcare for longer periods (not necessarily a bad thing for the elderly), huge lawsuits filed often against doctors (both lawyers, clients and governments' fault) and the inability for insurance companies to compete across state lines.
As Rodidog wrote, the very poor, children and elderly are covered; also, I would like to add anyone and I mean ANYONE who walks through an emergency entrance in a hospital is treated. Not sure why the need to reform everything and follow the failed health services from other parts of the world. Truth be told, now America is in a somewhat balanced position, not too much government, but enough that the most vulnerable are cared for.
I agree with UK Wales that America's school system needs a "reboot", but I would assume we'd both have different ways to address the issue. Needless to say, I still see little reason why America has to follow Europe or some various European type model on these things?
About the American military I am in full agreement that wars are very costly and should be avoided. Failed wars have brought down nations and victory in war can do the same. I do have to say that America is not even remotely like Russia (I just visited the Russian Far East and the infrastructure is fresh in my mind), and other than a passenger rail system what other improvements would you be desiring? America has a vast rail system, still supports the most trade in the world and boasts the most traffic or people going places and doing things. To compare that to the old Soviet Union...nah! Just to point out, the Soviets loved their projects, usually in 5 year bunches. All centrally planned and world class! Us backwards Americans have relied on the sloppy free market, and a hodgepodge of locally planned projects.
About the UK, love the place, really do. But where are the shop owners? How has the land of the amazing George Orwell become Big Brother? Cradle to the grave has robbed the people of their spirit. Dogs are often taught better manners people and it's actually your infrastructure, which even with huge government investment is crumbling. Thanks to the banks, Britain's former Empire, special relationship with the US and EU that anything is going on in the UK. You may tar and feather when ready ;-)
Complain about this comment
Ref 173, rodidog
You are right, contractors have been used by all government departments and agencies for a variety of jobs. I spent a little over 40 years at NASA, as a contractor, and I can tell you that much of the work in that agency is done by contractors, from engineering and design tasks, to operations, maintenance and all the way down to janitorial duties.
That happens to be an area where some savings could be realized, but not by reducing the number of contractors, who not only do most of the work but are often the most qualified. The ratio of government V contractors should be reduced to the point that government employees only perform high level direction, budget management, and oversight. This was actually attempted in the Clinton era, but civil service resistance won that battle and as soon as the Bush Administration took over all transition plans were abandoned and everything went back to business as usual.
Complain about this comment
LaPost "But ten years of hardship seems a fair price to pay for being so stupid as to elect a bunch of trickle down, cut taxes for the rich and start a couple of wars our children can pay for Republicans. Not that I ever voted for one of them."
Would you do me the favor of just counting war dead and attributing each to a political party? Always makes me laugh when I hear about Republican "warmongering". Huge massive wars in the last 100 years--> WWI preventable war, Wilson (D), WWII FDR (D) & Truman (D) atomic bomb, Korean War Truman (D) Ike out (R), Vietnam Johnson (D) use of Agent Orange Johnson (D) Nixson out (R), Desert Storm Bush I (R), Bosnia Clinton (D), Afghanistan & Iraq Bush II (R) add up the war dead and mistreated and you'll be able to see that you're the one being played by the Dems who act like doves, but are the real hawks.
When a democrat is elected I am always nervous because the likelihood of war increases and pretty much the only Republican to decide to fight a war is Bush II.
Be honest and not partisan. I tell you this as a member of neither party.
Complain about this comment
#175 SaintDominick,
I agree with what you say, contractors do indeed provide vital support and competence to various agencies, including the DoD.
Some of these contractors are sometimes paid above the average equivalence of their civilian counterparts. So perhaps money could be saved right there in addition to streamlining government agencies into more of an oversight role.
Complain about this comment
@ Baron
You're obviously new here so I'll cut you some slack. All but two of the "wars" you named were police actions, not declared wars. The only actual wars were WWI - not preventable because it was already in progress when we joined and it wasn't our war in the first place - and WWII, preventable, because we warned France and Britain not to bankrupt Germany, but already in progress when we took up arms, and then only because we were ATTACKED by Japan and then Germany declared war on the US.
Now, my response was very narrow to the specific "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan. As well as which fool of an unedumacated president got us into them. I was not addressing warmongering in general. And since most of those other "wars" have been debated ad nauseum on this blog, I think I'll skip the rerun and return to my regularly scheduled, non-blowhard interrupted, pleasant evening. Good night.
Complain about this comment
173. At 00:37am on 24 Feb 2010, rodidog wrote:
Contractors have been used since the Vietnam war for construction, maintenance, and logistical support. Bush did not start a new trend in this, he only enlarged the number of contractors.
True, I had forgotten about that. In any case, it's not just about building contractors, it's also about companies like Blackwater/Xe. The US should not need to hire paramilitary/mercenary organizations to conduct intelligence gathering or run its prisons, among other things. And to that end, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois, introduced the Stop Outsourcing Security Act. The goal of which is to once again make it the military's responsibility to train troops and police, guard convoys, repair weapons, run military prisons and do military intelligence activity. Maybe if it is illegal to outsource war and a draft is required, those who want to make money off of death and destruction will not be so eager to try. Because the next time we have a draft it'll be their kids that get to go too - no exemptions - daughters included.
Complain about this comment
#179 Gavrielle_LaPoste,
"The goal of which is to once again make it the military's responsibility to train troops and police, guard convoys, repair weapons, run military prisons and do military intelligence activity."
The main focus of Blackwater is personnel security for government employees. The State Departments Bureau of Diplomatic Security do not have enough personnel to do the job in Iraq or Afghanistan, hence the contract to Blackwater.
While Blackwater was used for security, training, and guard duty by the military, you should remember that is also part of their profile and expertise. Also, it is not correct to imply that Blackwater operated all intelligence gathering, training, or prison operations as you did. Those are still key roles operated by our military with Blackwater assisting in certain areas.
Complain about this comment
Re #167
No, Gavrielle.
My choice of labels (if one has to have a label) wasn't poor: it was deliberate.
And so was my choice of a 'Confederate' term.
[not everybody is a 'Yank' or even wants to be one]
And forgive me for not quoting what "the real Roosevelt" (Teddy) said about out "hyphenated-Americans"
Re: treason...
I'm willing to hang separately.
Although I suspect that if you are willing to be a hang.. hmmm...person
you'll have more than one person in this Republic to hang.
For willing to protect is against all its enemies: foreign AND domestic.
Complain about this comment
Re #174
"I do have to say that America is not even remotely like Russia (I just visited the Russian Far East and the infrastructure is fresh in my mind)"
What 'infrastructure'? [other than (dilapidated) military one] :-)
Perhaps more 'fellow travelers' should visit area between Nakhodka and Magadan -lovely this time of year- before they speak of U.S. "falling apart".
P.S. Make sure not to skip Sakhalin and Kamchatka!
Complain about this comment
Re #176 AND 178
Actually our military involvment in Vietnam began not under LBJ (D), but JFK (D).
[yes, it was preventable, just like Kennedy's Bay of Pigs fiasco]
Now, about our military involvement in the last Balkan War (Bosnia)...
Remind me, who was our non-inhaling Commander-in-Chief then? ;-)
Complain about this comment
#re 151 CamberwellBeaty re Vancouver Olympics
No, curling is where it ends for me.
[I'd rather watch the grass grow]
But downhill, GS and special slalom, as well as super G and jumps...
[and yes, this 5:3 US-Canada hockey match: just superb.]
BTW. For me personally the heroes of those Games so far are America's America's Bode Miller and Poland's Małysz.
Both written off before the Games and derisively described by "experts" as "have-beens".
Complain about this comment
Re: health care in North America
(particularly the exemplary one in Cuba):
Leading Cuban political prisoner Orlando Zapata Tamayo has died in hospital after 85 days on hunger strike, opposition sources say.
Mr Zapata, 42, had been admitted to Havana's Hermanos Ameijeiras hospital after his condition deteriorated.
Amnesty International declared him a prisoner of conscience after his arrest in March 2003 in a crackdown on opposition groups. [...]
His mother, Reina Luisa Tamayo, told the Miami newspaper El Nuevo Herald by telephone that her son had been "murdered" by Cuba's authorities.
"They managed to do what they wanted," she said. "They ended the life of a fighter for human rights.'' [BBC]
Complain about this comment
ukwales wrote:
"Phew,I thought I was in for both barrels,there are Europeans who care for & about America,not for what they can get,but for what they have been given.
Strange but true..."
What is it that they were "given?"
Going by the many non-American attitudes that you see on this site and in your part of the world you would think they were "given" American citizenship.
Complain about this comment
Mardell; you write like this health care reform effort is some sort of game. My wife noted that in the last 10 years or so the amount of do-it-yourself dentistry supplies in the supermarkets has increased exponentially. What's next, appendix surgery kits? We do not need to repeat the "Company Town" horrors of the 20's and 30's, yet that is what the Republican Party apparently wants to do; allow corporations to rule America. Business makes a poor master. The world won't end because the top 1% of America has to loosen their iron grip on their fellow citizens throats and accept a slightly smaller slice of the pie. Those crumbs they lose are unimportant to them but life-and-death to the 99%.
Obama is trying to remedy a slide towards the third-worldization of the USA driven by short-sighted business interests. When a significant portion of the population of a nation's only health plan becomes "crawl under a bush and die" that's not good for the country. Those same people are easily then manipulated by unprincipled people to lash out against others they perceive to be threats or competitors. The Fox Noise driven Tea Partiers are a prime example. You may be set and secure, but I can tell you that you are a minority. The health care issue is a real life and death matter for a lot of our people not a prep school debate.
Complain about this comment
The Toothbrush Man wrote:
"As for your claim about the US having more Nobel prize winniers than anybody else - this is true. But per capita the US is #15, with Switzerland, Iceland, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Norway, UK, Ireland, Germany, Israel and the Netherlands are all above the US."
You are assuming that a larger population determines a superior level of advancement and achievements within a country. You sure you want to do that?
Complain about this comment
Well, we are on a non-American website.
If the health and education of our workforce are factors in global competitiveness then more universal healthcare would seem easy for all to endorse.
Health care reform and better insurance won't bankrupt the country. Yes, there is room for tort reform. The anti-trust exemption for insurance providers could be removed. And there's room to reduce the massive advertising spending passed on to our drug prices, that teaches kids about the many Medicare-paid medications for 'ED' on prime time and the great pharmacopia of other drugs for a host of real and exaggerated ailments that we might be better to hear about from our doctors, instead of from billions of advertising dollars. The insurance reform plans generating all this opposition would also go a long way to eliminate the "we don't cover that condition here" horror stories I've heard from co-workers transferring between states.
With the recent ruling on political spending we've reached the point that walter Cronkite warned about 5-6 years ago, when the most venal few among all corporate interests can abuse influence and disproportionately control our government and manipulate or circumvent representative democracy. I was raised an Eisenhower republican but now I'm appalled how the drive to be business-friendly and argue against any government regulation has given away our manufacturing base overseas, bled our middle class (not to fund NASA or health care or scholarships or the SSC but to enrich our richest 1% or 0.1%), left professionals at the mercy of increasingly expensive and restrictive health insurance choices, and let our education- and research-based global leadership slip away for short term profit.
We need an Upton Sinclair and a TR to rescue America's middle class from the great assualt of outsourcing, leveraged buyouts and deregulation. Oliver Wendell Holmes (Civil War veteran, Supreme Court Justice and poet) was a good enough patriot for me and he said that 'taxes are the price of a civilized society'. Now the the price for a leader saying anything like that is a Tea Party mob working to unseat you...
Complain about this comment
LucyIllinois wrote:
"The Europeans are very impressive and have mostly dominated the slopes, though USA has done the best ever for us in alpine skiing this year. Many Europeans grow up on the slopes, so it is no wonder that they do so well, as it is natural."
You are comparing a continent to a country??
Many Americans also "grow up on the slopes" which explains America leading other countries in total medals on events that one would consider to be "on the slopes."
Are we watching the same Olympics?
Complain about this comment
CamberwellBeauty wrote:
"I just wouldn't want my birth (UK) country/peoples judged by exchanges in such a forum as this, and ditto for my now adopted country the USA."
Why not for your "now adopted country?"
The Americans posting here are a good example of what and how Americans think. Or is it that you don't want them to think the way they do?
"There are some well established stand-offs from both sides on here and I've read plenty of insults from both sides, too. Not very pleasant sometimes."
No, the "insults" originate from non-Americans who first believe they have the right to arrogantly and disrespectfully make demands on how Americans should run their country in matters that have absolutely zero to do with them while continuously mocking many different aspects of our culture.
"I would hope that such exchanges would be less contentious in person?"
I'm sure that most of the outspoken Brits here wouldn't talk as they do here with Americans in person, especially in America, because I'm sure they know very well what the reaction would be.
Complain about this comment
#118 AllenT2
"You are assuming that a larger population determines a superior level of advancement and achievements within a country. You sure you want to do that?"
Er, that's exactly what I didn't say.
All I've done is post the number of Nobel prizes per capita for a number of different countries. I did this in response to powermeekat's claim about US technological superiority ...
"Look no further than at the list of Nobel prize winners in science and medicine in the last 100 years and the names and nationalities of major patent holders without which you would not have a modern science&technology-based civilization as we know it today."
You are free to dispute my findings. I found them on Google.
Complain about this comment
Gavrielle_LaPoste wrote:
"Interesting. Yesterday, you were claiming to be a Confederate, despite the fact that such a proclamation is still on the books as a treasonous offense. Today, you are claiming to be a Native American - or is it that famous/infamous "one sixteenth Indian blood" that gives one access to certain monetary and educational entitlements by way of reparations that you are suddenly so proud to announce?"
Everyone born in America is a native American! Or do you have your own meaning to the words American and native?
I am also a native American, and of American Indian descent. I also don't need handouts that some other whiny Americans, and their instigators, somehow feel they are entitled to.
Complain about this comment
Allen – Actually the Nobel Awards are a bad way to determine how good a country is at inventing, firstly the Nobel is awarded for scientific discoveries, not inventions or theories. Secondly the country designated as winning the award is based on where the discovery was made, not the original nationality of the winner. In total the USA has won 320 laureates across all categories, of those approximately 60 have been awarded for chemistry and 84 physics, of those awards 14 chemistry and 22 physics winners were born out the USA (7 physics winners came from Germany). It should also be noted that since the awards are given for specific discoveries, all the scientists significantly involved in that discovery get a laureate, I believe in 1974 3 physicists won a laureate, which inflates the overall number of winners.
This is the problem of just using raw statistics as evidence, they are meaningless unless you apply some filters. I understand it was not you that raised them in the first place, but even in a discussion on inventions (which is pretty irrelevant in a discussion about health care policy) Nobel Prizes and where winners come from is a meaningless distraction, as I said the prizes are not given for inventions rather scientific discoveries which in physics especially can be very abstract, after all when have you ever bought string theory in the local Wal-Mart?
Complain about this comment
#157 powermeerkat
"Just like nobody would be that stupid as to send robots to Mars, deep space probes outside of our Solar system decades ago and put a Hubble space telescop in Earth's orbit. Or Create Internet and GPS.
Let alone make make them available to everybody. Right? Right.
BTW. How's your Galileo doing?
P.S. I agree that if we hadn't invented nuclear bomb first, Nazis would have."
1. It's not only the US that has sent probes to Mars. The EU has sent probes. The USSR sent a LOT of probes to Mars and indeed the first man made object to land on Mars was Soviet.
2. Hubble is a joint project between NASA and ESA.
3. The US did not "invent" the internet. It's considerably more complicated than that. For example, the HTT
4. Galileo is due for operation 2014. Interestingly, after 9/11 the US state department tried to shut down the Galileo project complaining that it would compromise the potency of the US threat to be able to shut down the US GPS at will. Some US officals even went so far as to threaten to shoot down Galileo satellites. Which has only spurred on the EU to complete Galileo - nobody wants to be subject to the whim of the US.
It is interesting to note that the GPS was designed for the military use, whereas Galileo is being designed for civilian use.
to shut down the US GPS system at the will of the US military.
4. The EU launch more satellites
Complain about this comment
SaintDominick wrote:
"Calls of anti-Americanism are manifestations of immaturity when someone doesn't have a valid argument to present. Just ignore them and rest assured that many of us appreciate the constructive criticisms and suggestions you all make."
Why don't you, or any of the others, address the actual comment made and defend it as not being anti-American? What are you afraid of?
There are few "constructive criticisms and suggestions" made here. There is any overwhelming attitude of arrogance and disrespect for how Americans decide to run their own country, especially in matters that have nothing to do with them.
If that's what you like then with all do respect maybe you would be happier in the UK being being told by foreigners in Brussels how you should run your country.
"Unfortunately, ideology, complacency, fear of what some regard as "foreign" concepts, the conviction that our systems and services are the best in the world and that any changes, no matter how benign, will destroy what can not possibly be improved, the pervasive influence of big business on public opinion and policy-making, greed and political opportunism are impediments that are simply too powerful to overcome."
Where are the Americans telling others that our system is better than anyone else??? Americans here, including me, in the end, couldn't care less what other countries choose to do with their health care!
No, it the so-called Europeans here that are desperately trying to put their case forward that their country has a better system than America does!
Complain about this comment
At 12:09pm on 23 Feb 2010, David Murrell wrote:
"Allen – Thanks for proving my post 80 so succinctly."
What point would that be?
"Yes the citizens of the USA are normally called Americans. Looking at the Democrat proposals they have never reached the socialised (note not socialist) levels imposed by the NHS."
That's your interpretation.
"Politically outside the US the Democrats are regarded as being a centre right party, their aspirations and ideology doesn’t match the political will that formed the NHS."
Is this another case where so-called Europeans are the voice of the rest of the world?
Your comment is also quite encouraging.
"Are people defeatist because they don’t do what I want? No, I think I made it relatively clear:
"To clarify some posters, including your good self, have intimated that the US is too big to cope with the change being suggested, so rather than try they would rather continue with a status quo, even they acknowledge doesn’t work. Sounds pretty defeatist to me."
You are putting words in my mouth. Nothing that you have just written describes how I feel or what I have said previously.
"So you agree that “About the only thing America wishes to teach in that capacity is democracy”, as I understood it American style democracy is your political system. I assume you believe that this political system is a success. Since we appear to be agreeing and the statement you seem to have taken issue with never once mentioned health care, as I don’t regard health care as a political system, what exactly should I stop?"
Go back and read what I wrote. I was quite clear.
"And I note that I have been raised up as the spoke person for all socialists, how you honour me. I am not sure that most socialists would agree with you. Have I ever stated that I would disagree with America if it addressed something, say healthcare, that needed addressing? I don’t believe so, indeed I was actually advocating getting past the party politics and addressing that very subject."
Once again, you are putting words in my mouth and/or drawing odd conclusions about what I have clearly written.
"As for wanting corporations out of business, why on Earth would I want that?"
Ask the person who claimed you wanted that because it wasn't me.
"Actually as socialists go I am a rather poor one, I sacrificed many of my principles to the altar of mammon many years ago. Personally I believe that corporations, especially financial monoliths work best under tighter regulation, since it concentrates their imaginations on how to work round these restrictions rather than riskier ways of making a profit. I also do not believe that governments should ever be beholden to them, however, as I have voiced previously on these boards, I believe the day of the national government is coming to an end and the day of corporate state may arrive within my life time."
You are rambling my friend and I'm quickly losing interest.
“Sorry is that ‘you’ socialists in general, or me in particular. If it is directed at me personally please supply some evidence to back up that spurious accusation."
Simply based on your comments. If you wish to disagree then that's your right.
“Could you quantify that statement, because it seems on face both vague and inaccurate?"
That doesn't surprise me considering the confusion you are showing in responses to things that I have clearly said and addressed.
"While America may have done things technologically impossible in an earlier age, it is not the first world superpower, economically or militarily. I believe Rome was slightly more successful, for instance in promoting its political system further in a shorter time period, we will have to wait and see if America can compete with say Rome on lasting influence on the world."
The Romans were no better than the Nazis, and just as brutal.
I was also not addressing "lasting influence on the world." The time period I was addressing was made quite clear.
"For their day and age the Founding Fathers were very liberal, basing their ideas on those most liberal ideas of the time. Times change and I would like to think if they had been alive long enough their views would have changed with them."
The Founding Fathers were men that valued ideals based on timeless moral values, something "liberals" of today have a hard time dealing with.
"Oh, and yes at that point in history their views bearing arms (which means bearing weapons, not just guns – strange how certain Americans only read that statement one way) was very liberal."
Why is that "strange?" When the topic is brought it is because we are addressing "just guns."
Yep, those Founding Fathers valued the individual citizen's right, and also duty, to bear arms. Smart they were.
"As for reading the whole Constitution, why on Earth would, have you read the French Constitution?"
I didn't realize we were discussing the French Constitution. We were certainly discussing the American Constitution.
"I leave to those who claim knowledge and understanding to offer opinion and base my responses on that opinion. Though I must ask if it is so amendable why the difficulty with consolidating welfare with the idea of health care."
Read our Constitution and with great hope you might understand.
"And I have never visited America, let a lone lived there. I apologise if I ever gave such an impression, I assumed everyone knew that I was a Brit!"
Strange, I thought you were the one previously claiming to live in San Fran and that also had American citizenship.
"One thing I will agree with you on, this liberal does find it difficult to believe in basic and timeless morals, with a few exceptions such as it is wrong to kill someone else (which is why I am adverse to capital punishment in all forms)"
Even in self defense? Would you allow your loved ones to be murdered in front of you?
If someone robs you of everything you own would you be OK with that?
In my opinion liberals of today are much more unhappier than conservatives because they can not reconcile their view that everything is relative with a universe where everything so far has laws and consequences when those laws are broken.
"I believe that morals move and change with time. At one point it was morally acceptable to own slaves, to physically assault your wife, to force people of certain ethnicities to live as second class people, morality has changed."
So then what makes your morals better than people that still believe in that?
"Personally since I have ditched chunks of the hypocritical Christian morality, which seems to me devoted to a sense of guilt, I have found this liberal has been much happier. As long as my actions don’t deliberately hurt someone else, I see little reason to restrict myself – Maybe you should try it is very emancipating!"
Survey after survey actually show Christians and conservatives being much happier than liberals and so-called progressives. Sorry.
Complain about this comment
Allen – You know sometimes you make it difficult to have a moderate conversation with, despite what you may have been taught, attack is not always the best form of defence.
When certain posters, which regrettably includes you at times, delight in telling us Europeans (which despite what some claim is normally not a reference to the EU, which seems to be more of an American obsession than a European one, most of us ignore the EU most of the time), that we live in the EUSSR, are so-called Europeans, mindless drones of Brussels, are you really trying to say that those posters are not trying to show there superiority.
First off lets deal with these slurs – EUSSR, the thing doesn’t even make sense the European Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or European Union of Council Socialist Republics (Soviet is Russian for council, none of the EU member states have Russian as their first language), of the EU member states the UK, Sweden, Denmark, Spain and the Netherlands are monarchies. Since monarchies cannot be, by definition, republics and Luxembourg is a Grand Duchy so again not a republic. While mostly more left wing than the USA, both Spain and Portugal have been run by far right fascist governments since the war, though this currently not the case.
So-called Europeans, why do some Americans have an issue with Europeans, from different countries, recognising that we come from the same continent? Most of you seem happy enough to have African-Americans, Irish-Americans etc, the vast majority of those making that claim have to go back at least two generations to make that claim viable. Unless someone holds dual Irish/American nationality, then they are a so-called Irish-American, same goes for all the others.
While there are certainly differences between the European nations, language, traditions etc, we share an intertwined history extending back millennia. Also many of the current European countries didn’t exist in their current form two hundred years ago, either they were a different size, part of another European country, or part of a country that formed a current country.
As I said it seems that the EU is a bigger issue for some Americans than it is in the EU! As for mindless drones accepting Brussels demands, have a quick check on the Politics and European boards, to see how false that claim is. I am a Europhile, but I don’t agree with everything that comes out of the EU, goodness I am a Brit and I hardly agree with half the things that come out of Westminster!
Now, if you can state where I have said that America is rubbish, Americans stupid etc I’ll agree with your accusation. I do show an interest in the US, I wouldn’t be on this board otherwise. Yes I do criticise American policies and at times Americans, for instance I am criticising you, does that mean I am showing anti-Allenism? With health care my values mean that I believe certain US posters views regarding leaving the poor to take care of themselves is wrong. I hate to burst your bubble here, but those views are not unique to America, the idea that people should get off their rumps and help themselves that giving handouts is wrong happens in the UK. Where I meet that attitude I tell them why I think they are wrong. Only a couple of weeks ago I had a lengthy discussion with a libertarian friend who believes that the NHS should be scrapped, by the way as a dual British/German national I am guessing he would class as a ‘real’ European. The thing is after the discussion neither of us felt aggrieved, though I am guessing some in the pub thought it might become to blows at points, indeed I thanked him for good discussion. I have no issue with discussing matters with people who disagree with me, as long as it is kept reasonably civilised. The problem is sometimes certain posters forget this courtesy.
Complain about this comment
_marko wrote:
"If someone posts:
"The US government is too incompetent to affect meaningful change and is a morally corrupt system. It is incapable of operating at the same level of efficiency as those of other developed nations."
This statment and the motivation of the person who supplied it could be: disrespectful, unpatriotic, anti-American ,respectful, patriotic, or pro-American.
As the arbiter of anti-Americanism, spokesman for most Americans and interpreter of the constitution, which do you feel best describe this statement and why?"
Very amusing. Now try and actually address the comment that I said was anti-American. No one yet wishes to do so. I wonder why.
Complain about this comment
amaryr wrote:
"AllenT2 - Why do you dislike hearing others points of view unless they co-incide with yours?"
That is not my view at all. You have either not read enough of my posts and/or you are choosing to believe what you want to believe.
"Particularly if the proponent is not an American? This is, after all, a BBC site, and by default there are bound to be British and European readers here, as well as Americans. I have not seen anyone dictating that the health care changes proposed for the States should be run on NHS, Canadian, Japanese or any other, lines."
Your word "dictating" is a good choice. That sums of the views of most of the non-Americans here.
Complain about this comment
David Murrell wrote:
"Allen – For the last time if you don’t like horrible foreigners discussing America, don’t come to our websites looking for comments. "
You are not merely "discussing America," you are dictating to us. That's where constructive criticism ceases to be constructive and instead becomes offensive.
"Apologies to everyone who is not British, I am not trying to say that only the British can comment here, but it is annoying to read that as someone who pays for this website I apparently don’t have the right to comment here."
No one ever said you didn't have a right to "comment here."
"I also thought under the American Constitution that free speech was protected, I can see in America a foreigner might be constrained, but effectively Allen you are the foreigner, as this is a British domain (.co.uk), so you have to abide by our idea of free speech – so basically old chum, put up or shut up, the choice is yours."
It is always interesting and amusing to hear those that are always dictating to others how they should live *their lives* in *their countries* talking about "free speech."
Complain about this comment
The Toothbrush Man wrote:
"Er, that's exactly what I didn't say.
All I've done is post the number of Nobel prizes per capita for a number of different countries. I did this in response to powermeekat's claim about US technological superiority ..."
Yes, you did. You are demeaning his claim based on per capita which would equal what I wrote.
Complain about this comment
David Murrell wrote:
"I understand it was not you that raised them in the first place, but even in a discussion on inventions (which is pretty irrelevant in a discussion about health care policy) Nobel Prizes and where winners come from is a meaningless distraction, as I said the prizes are not given for inventions rather scientific discoveries which in physics especially can be very abstract, after all when have you ever bought string theory in the local Wal-Mart?"
I'm not the one who "raised them in the first place" and yet I am the one you have chosen to lecture to on this subject??
Complain about this comment
David Murrell wrote:
"Allen – You know sometimes you make it difficult to have a moderate conversation with, despite what you may have been taught, attack is not always the best form of defence."
So your way to try and counter someone disagreeing with you is to claim they are attacking you so somehow you are portrayed as a victim that has been wronged?
"When certain posters, which regrettably includes you at times, delight in telling us Europeans (which despite what some claim is normally not a reference to the EU, which seems to be more of an American obsession than a European one, most of us ignore the EU most of the time), that we live in the EUSSR, are so-called Europeans, mindless drones of Brussels, are you really trying to say that those posters are not trying to show there superiority."
Do you have the same kind of freedoms to elect and control those in Brussels as you do with your own government? You do know that's an obvious answer, right? I've never used the term EUSSR, by the way.
I say so-called Europeans towards those that speak as if it were a nationality, which it is not. That's not an insult but a fact.
I will not be addressing your posts any longer because no one can debate with someone who believes that most everything is relative. I suspect most of the liberals here feel the same as you do so I'll make it easy and make this my last comment.
Complain about this comment
Ref 197, AllenT2
"That's your interpretation."
No Allen, that ought to be everybody's interpretation if they would just take their blinders off and take the time to read what was and what is being proposed.
The Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress never proposed a system that uses government employees and government-run institutions to deliver medical services. What was originally proposed, which by now is pretty much history, was a system modeled after the Federal government civil service healthcare system which uses REGULATED PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES to manage it. The original goals were to make it an all inclusive system, eliminate some of the most draconian clauses in our system, and control cost.
A system that uses private industry to manage it, that allows for medical doctors to retain their private practices, that uses privately owned hospitals, and that allows private enterprise to develop and sell drugs is as far away from socialism as our plant is from the most faraway nebulae.
Complain about this comment
On the issue of foreigners voicing their opinions on a foreign media outlet, may I remind some of my fellow Americans that we are the foreigners on this blog?
Are we so uncertain of our beliefs that we can not accept constructive criticism or the opinions of others without clamoring anti-Americanism?
I love my country, I am proud of being an American, and I have no intention of moving anywhere else, but that doesn't mean I think our systems and our way of life could not be improved, If someone, regardless of nationality, offers an opinion or a suggestion that may help us improve what we have I see absolutely no reason why we shouldn't listen and consider what we are being told. Besides, we always have the option of switching to FOX if we don't like what I hear on mediums like this...
Complain about this comment
Allen – The fact you think I have ever stated I have lived in San Francisco, shows you don’t actually read my posts. It also shows that in this thread you correctly stated that I was living in Britain, before you made this slightly surprising claim that I have stated American residency at any point, that you can be inconsistent.
For the record while I have flown over parts of the USA, the closest I have ever got to the US is Mexico. My Father went to the US, indeed was told in SF to ‘watch out for the dirty gring..’, in Spanish no less, because as a visitor he went into the wrong bar and luckily looks Mexican (apparently so do I). He wasn’t however ever a resident, rather he was an officer, in the Merchant Navy. He was for about a year a resident in Australia, helped build Sydney Harbour (well that’s what he tells me), he even wanted to move out there at one time.
Strange how I misconstrued your post, something I note many people you disagree with do, especially since my post answered yours paragraph by paragraph and included direct quotes. It’s also strange that you missed these, even when you quoted my post, one of which by rights should have included a quote of yours that apparently I didn’t understand.
Also I note that I should read the whole of the Constitution rather than you and other Americans being able to adequately describe it, which is vaguely disappointing. It will be even more disappointing for you, since I have no intention of reading a document which to me is completely pointless. Barring your strange recollection, I have never lived, nor intend to, in the US - a constitution of a country which is of only passing interest (if I was going to move to another country, these days it would most likely be another European one, or in the case of North America Canada) is therefore pointless.
As for the studies, yes I am fully aware of them that was one reason I did not speak on behalf of either liberals or atheists (while am both, they are not as you imply the same thing or necessarily mutual compatible, Richard Dawkins would rarely be classed as a liberal and I know a number of Christians who are liberal), I leave pointless and meaningless generalisations for other people, thanks for filling that role.
Finally thank you for letting me post on these boards, you don’t know how relieved I feel, no really you don’t!
Complain about this comment
Allen (204) – So you’re admitting defeat then!?! I shall therefore add your name to my list of American defeatists!
Complain about this comment
It's actually amusing when you hear somebody criticizing Americans for sticking to their merely 200 yrs old Consitution while himself living under centuries old, obsolete and parasitic monarchy.
Whose members went as far as changing their original German name in order not to rub their subjects the wrong way and thus to enjoy their priviledges for another century.
Complain about this comment
Re #189 Nevada_Blue wrote:
"I'm appalled how the drive to be business-friendly and argue against any government regulation has given away our manufacturing base overseas, bled our middle class (not to fund NASA or health care or scholarships"
I won't even get into this Administration's attempt to practically destroy NASA because my blood pressure could shoot sky-high.
[a break for having a shot of bourbon to thin my blood]
But this self-made man would be willing to pay even more in federal taxes [Gavrielle, can you read that?] for a specific, narrowly targetted program of financing graduate and post-graduate studies of those talented young brilliant Americans who simply can't afford to pay Caltech's, MIT's or Princetown's fees.
Particularly when I see a dangerous shortage of mathematicians and physisists in this country.
[BTW. Current American Nobel prize winners in science are mostly products of 1940s and 1950s' public education system. Effectively destroyed in 1960s and 70s]
Complain about this comment
"The US did not "invent" the internet."
PHHLEEASE don't make me laugh.
You have not clue what Internet is.
[no, its not merely WWW].
Internet has been invented by Pentagon (ARPA -now DARPA - and USAF scientists]
Just like GPS, or communication satellite, for a specific purpose.
I don't see any USSR/EUSSR robots moving on Mars' surface. Or going to Pluto.
If I had my way you people, of Galileo fame, would never get access to both: Internet-2 and GPS-2 or, in 3 years time, to Webb Space Telescope]
[thankfully, you currently don't to either of the first two.]
Being perfectly capable of coming up with their equivalents yourselves.
And having as many successes in that field, as in design/production of petaflop supercomputers, photonic comps and neural networks.
BTW. How's the work on A-350 progressing?
P.S. What was it Lafontaine wrote about a fox and sour grapes?
Complain about this comment
Powermeerkat – Who says I don’t criticise the monarchy? I may not have here, mostly because the opportunity to defend or criticise has not come about, unless you consider suggesting the dictator Oliver Cromwell, or rather his son’s was seen as a worse option than Charles II (who was Scottish if anything, well half French to be correct) as support for the current dynasty, which would be a stretch.
To be accurate, something you appear to have difficulty with at times, what I have criticised is some Americans’ interpretation of the Constitution. I have stated that if this interpretation is correct, then the Constitution appears to be a straight jacket to progress.
Two feathers
Complain about this comment
211. powermeerkat:
"Internet has been invented by Pentagon (ARPA -now DARPA - and USAF scientists]"
************
Way back, I remember my telecommunications professor going on about "ARPA Net" during her lectures. With her thick Russian accent, we had no idea what she was saying. It wasn't until I asked her that she explained. It was pretty exciting back then.
Complain about this comment
206. SaintDominick:
"Besides, we always have the option of switching to FOX if we don't like what I hear on mediums like this..."
******************
With all due respect, comments like this make this blog approach the equivalent of a FoxNews sometimes, just at the other end of the political spectrum.
A robust debate should be able to handle all types of views, even those presented by FoxNews.
Complain about this comment
#184 powermeerkat
Yep, that curling has tested me, but I have gone one with grim determination and watched it so when all is said and done I can say, with confidence "I hated that, but glad I did it!!" A bit like finishing a book that you are not really enjoying.
191#AllenT
Not trying to tell anyone how to think or what to think - I believe that's your job!
I visit here to get all kinds of opinions from a lot of varied thinking & pretty dynamic and educated people. I've learned a lot and respected many of the posters here, from both sides.
I intend to remain as open minded I can. End of story!
Complain about this comment
Re #212
U.S. Constitution may APPEAR to be a straight jacket only to those who haven't actually read it. [at least not carefully].
Unlike EU Const..err... Lisbon Treaty, which, according to YOUR OWN COMPATRIOTS (juddging by UK polls and numerous Britons' comments on BBC's own HYS) is; trying to create sneakily a superbureaucratic superstate.
[although still incapable of coming up with a common unified foreign policy. Let alone a common defense policy. Or even an energy policy.]
You don't like a EUSSR label?
I'll gladly settle for USE [United States of Europe] the moment I see a semblance of unity among quarrelsome, selfishly acting European countries.
As we saw in case of Greece. Or Georgia. Or Afghanistan. Or Iran. Or...
I'm prepared to wait for a show of European unity till hell freezes over.
Although that seems not v. likely in view of a "man-made global warming".
Complain about this comment
Re #214
Andrea, I actually refered a moment before that to FOX and sour grapes.
Presciently, it sees :)
Complain about this comment
Re #213
Andrea, If you have studied telecomunications it may interest you that currently there's a well advanced work in progress, to get Internet-2
to 10 Gbps connection speed.[which is badly needed]
And perspectively - to 100 gigabits per sec.
Yep, "we've come a long way, baby" :-)
Complain about this comment
Powermeerkat – Question: have you read the Lisbon treaty or are you basing your opinion on my own compatriots (notice you have fallen back to the online equivalent of shouting, while I am slightly short sighted and have been since about 11 I don’t require things to be written in capitals so I can read them)?
If you haven’t then your view of the Treaty is as valid mine on the US Constitution, and so fail to understand the problem. If you have then shame on you for ever questioning the point about EU citizenry, which is spelt out relatively clearly in the document.
I object to the term EUSSR because it is patently incorrect, pathetic point scoring which ignores obvious facts (such as not all the member states being republics and none of them being currently Russian), should be objected to as the obfuscate meaningful dialogue. The USE might be acceptable, but really the EU which is accurate and actually exists as a term would be better.
Shockingly the Treaty which came into force the end of December, has not reached the objectives laid down, such as common foreign and military policies. Of course if they had then my compatriots would be correct in stating the EU was possibly a superstate, you know the thing they are looking to avoid.
Apologies, I am once again I am unsure what your complaint is about European democracies being concerned with the needs of their own populations against those of their allies. Are you suggesting that the North American democracies should synchronise their responses. I was under the impression you thought the US should put Americans first. If you do I believe it is a case for throwing accusations about colour against the poor kettle.
As for Hell (it’s a place name it deserves a capital, even if it doesn’t exist), I guess you have not read Dante’s Inferno? Despite the name it describes one of the nine rings which is frozen. Since Hell is an extra-dimensional location, if it exists, I doubt its climate has anything to do with Earth, unless your suggesting that Hell is hot because of solar activity?
Final feather.
Complain about this comment
To AllenT2 #199
"...the comment that I said was anti-American. No one yet wishes to do so. I wonder why"
The question at #100 was an opportunity to describe the rationality behind making your judgment about whether something is anti-American or not. Your avoidance to address this question suggests that you can't really supply a justification, further suggesting that you only use this accusation as a rhetorical device in answer to any criticism of the USA.
Complain about this comment
Ref 214, AndreaNY
"With all due respect, comments like this make this blog approach the equivalent of a FoxNews sometimes, just at the other end of the political spectrum.
A robust debate should be able to handle all types of views, even those presented by FoxNews."
Of course, but there is a difference between debate and claims of anti-Americanism every time someone hears something they don't like. That's not debate, that's immaturity and narrow mindedness.
As far as views from the "other end of the political spectrum" I have no problem with that and as you may have noticed I often engage in debates with folks whose opinions I disagree with but, nevertheless, respect.
BTW, I admit that I enjoy the unbiased reporting of news on the BBC a lot more than what I hear on FOX, MSNBC or NBC. Extremism has never been my cup of tea. I enjoy NPR, CNN (without the talking heads), and I sometimes watch ABC.
Complain about this comment
Ref 218, powermeerkat
"Yep, "we've come a long way, baby" :-)"
We sure have, I still remember the day we upgraded our Teletype system to 100 WPM. We thought our equipment was going to disintegrate and could not believe how fast we could receive and transmit messages and data.
When that happened, I was stationed at a NASA Project Mercury tracking station in Maspalomas, Gran Canaria (Canary Islands). Believe it or not, that's the medium we used to transmit tracking and telemetry data when John Glenn was in orbit! Not only was the system slow, our transmissions to London were constantly affected by RFI and the submarine cables between London and the USA were less than reliable.
Obviously, that was one heck of an improvement over the Remington and Underwood manual typewriters, carbon paper, and Witeout...and it all happened in one generation!
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat # 210
Needing Dutch Courage, or was there another reason?
Nobody has accused you of anything yet, despite the earlier, uncalled for remarks about the monarchy.
Isn't it a bit early to be taking the fifth.
Complain about this comment
I understand that Allen is no longer responding to me since I am some kind of alien liberal thing, entrenched in my moral relativism, but I re-read part of an earlier response.
For back ground, I stated that other than some specific underlying morals, including that it is wrong to kill someone. Granted giving a rather simplistic response did leave me open to criticism, but re-reading the critique I got I am struck that it is a tad bizarre!
“Even in self defense? Would you allow your loved ones to be murdered in front of you?”
Granted, instinctively I might kill someone else in self defence, but I would hope that I would not rationally intend to. I can foresee circumstances where to stop someone I may be forced to do things that might kill them. As for protecting loved ones, possibly strangely, I can easier see myself killing someone to defend someone I care about, than I could to defend myself. Even then I don’t believe my first reaction would be to deliberately try and kill someone, simply to stop someone else being killed.
Even if I could justify my actions, unless I used moral relativism, why would my killing someone become more morally correct than that other person killing someone. Also there seems an implication of pacifism, which I find a bit strange, just because I think taking another life is wrong, doesn’t mean I wouldn’t be willing to clump someone!
“If someone robs you of everything you own would you be OK with that?”
Now this is where I find it gets a little scary, how could ever be morally alright to kill someone because they stole off me!?! Have them arrested, wish harm upon, even if I was desperate visit harm upon but kill over a theft, sorry that is a moral line I would not be able to cross.
To provide evidence I said - At one point it was morally acceptable to own slaves, to physically assault your wife, to force people of certain ethnicities to live as second class people, morality has changed. -
To which I got the following:
“So then what makes your morals better than people that still believe in that?”
Now I find this a very bizarre question, if had said who believed that, as in the past tense, I would have had to admit probably nothing, but the question stated still believe in that. To be clear why do I feel my morality is superior to some who in this day and age believes it is morally acceptable to own slaves, abuse their wives, or force certain ethnicities to live as second class citizens? I apologise but anyone who believes any of these three is still morally acceptable needs to explain themselves first. I am not, for the record suggesting that Allen does, but it is concerning that he thought this was a logical and reasonable question.
Complain about this comment
This thread has, sadly, mainly become a back and forth slugging match between AllenT2 and most of the the others here. I wonder why we bother? It would only be useful if, if on both sides of the argument we could find some common ground and move on.
To return to health care.
Someone - can't find the post, apologies - thought some treatments in the UK were denied to senior citizens on the grounds of age. This is not so.
Cataract surgery being just one excellent example. Thousands of extremely elderly citizens have improved quality of life having this done. In our own family, members in their 80s and 90s have had hip replacements and excellent follow-up care, and another aunt in her late 90s, suffering from bowel cancer, which from fear she concealed for a long time, was counselled with great understanding and offered surgery. She declined and was supported and cared for until her death by her GP.
I give these examples, because although by themselves they do not indicate that everything is good in the NHS garden, they ameliorate to some degree the idea that it is a rotten system. It's not.
Complain about this comment
The monarchy. Ah yes! The monarchy do not 'rule' or govern us in the UK. The Queen is a titular Head of State only, the current monarch being a gracious and worthy individual who arguably leads a life that is a reasonable model to follow. Certainly in historical terms compares favourably to many of her predecessors rackety and blood-thirsty reigns.
Whether this continues with a King Charles and a King William we will have to wait and see. But in the pattern of current events monarchs are little more secure on their thrones than Presidents on their.....what do Presidents rule from? Desk chairs? Airplanes? Either Head of State cost the state they head a fair amount. You pays your money and you takes your choice.
PS Can Christians be liberal and happy? Can liberals be Christian? Can liberal non-believers be moral?Answers on both sides on a billboard please.
Complain about this comment
"Are you suggesting that the North American democracies should synchronise their responses."
No, DM, I'm not suggesting. I know they DO.
Does NORAD mean anything to you?
[no, I'm not shouting from a frozen Hell; it's just an acronym for something which has worked beautifully for the whole North American Continent for over half a century. (Well, Castrate Bros might disagree)]
And historically close and well coordinated American-Canadian cooperation in economic, energy and military matters?
[cf. Canadian (highly appreciated) active participation in IFOR, e.g.]
And snychronized Mexican-American cooperation re narcotrafficking?
BTW. NAFTA (no, I'm not shouting) does not stand for an oil-by-product.
Although when Chile (remember Chile?) joins that free-trade organization it will become AFTA. [no, I don't mean an actors guild].
Even more so after Peru....
P.S. I'm not sure I'd help you re conflagration in the Falklands region.
But I will support a U.S. support for the British SOLDIERS, if need be.
P.P.S. At the rate things are developing (a growing Chinese military threat) even something like ANZUS may me reactivated, as some in Canberra are beginning to suggest, although it may become known as AJUS, if Japan decides it has enough of being bullied by Beijing and its proxy/lackey in Pyongyong.
Which would amount to a synchronized trans-Pacific cooperation.
[again, Chinese Commies might feel rightly excluded. Sorry, comrades!]
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
210 - Powermeerkat
I agree with you about the scholarships!
NASA (and NASA international collaborations) are a mixed bag IMHO because the manned vs. unmanned topic touches a raw nerve for so many.
On one hand I could not be more proud of or excited about the robot missions from pre-Apollo Ranger Surveyor Explorer days through Mariner, Pioneer, Voyager and Galileo(Jupiter) to the current Cassini/Huygens, Messenger, the plucky Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity and the pathfinding Sojourner, the spectrum-spanning set of space telescopes, and so on. And I'm glad the ISS gets extra years to do a lot more of the science it was promised to do when started.
On the other hand, not funding Ares/Orion is dissapointing, but that's tempered by my admiration and optimism for Elon Musk's Space-X and similar private earth-to-low-orbit ventures and another new idea/technology demonstrator, the USAF X-37 that will fly in 2010.
I'm not sure yet that the Ares decision is destroying NASA so much as removing it from the commmodity pressure and non-cutting edge responsibility of LEO deliveries, while it gathers for more inspiring longer term goals and approaches. We'll see.
If we control health care & insurance costs and make responsible consumer and management choices (don't feed outsourcing, don't focus on short term paper gains, consider the cost to our nation not just sticker price before buying) we'll have more money for both Astronauts and robots, and scholarships, to make a better future...
Complain about this comment
Amary – “Can Christians be liberal and happy? Can liberals be Christian? Can liberal non-believers be moral?Answers on both sides on a billboard please.”
I shall leave that can of worms alone other than to say – yes, yes & yes.
Complain about this comment
The "Care" part of "Health Care" needs to be stressed. To "Care" for fellow citizens in terms of health care, should be number one on the agenda for the citizens and the government of the citizens of this great country. If our government, Republicans, Democrats and all representative parties of the people, truly care about all our citizens, then universal health care is a given. With universal health care, and the elimination of needless health insurance (middle man) company profits, then we can make some real savings for all. The slippery slope that has been taken already, is the belief that businesses work in the best interest of their customers. This is untrue. The number one agenda of corporations is profit, with increased profit and not increased savings and better services for their customers! Public health care is the only way to decrease the cost of health care, increase the quality of health care and increase the standard of living for ALL Americans.
Complain about this comment
Powermeerkat - regarding this military cooperation. How many Mexican soldiers (sorry I meant SOLDIERS) fought in the Gulf war? I'll give you a helping hand, as actual soldiers in the Mexican army not many, since DN1 was last given in 1942, without DN1 approval the Mexican army cannot leave Mexico.
UN peacekeepers do not count.
For your jacket.
Complain about this comment
Re#210
Are you talking to me? Are YOU talking to ME?
[it's a quote from "Taxi Driver", btw]
This post dealt with NASA financial problems not with any Fifth.
With Barack Hussein seemingly not willing to fund US heavy lift (which directly affects our national security), but more than willing to finance another decade of ISS operation.
[an object almost completely useless from the purely scientific point of view, and which, IMHO, should have never been built in the 1st place.
BTW. SaintDominick (re #222). Do you remember total processing power of on-board computers in both Apollo and LEM modules? :-)))
No wonder conspiracy theorists believe that O.J. Simpson was the 1st U.S. astronaut on the Moon[-like Hollywood stage]. ;)
P.S. Gran Canaria...Brings back fond memories.
[There's also a nice station in Pine Gap, NT]
Complain about this comment
229. Nevada_Blue:
"If we control health care & insurance costs and make responsible consumer and management choices (don't feed outsourcing, don't focus on short term paper gains, consider the cost to our nation not just sticker price before buying) we'll have more money for both Astronauts and robots, and scholarships, to make a better future..."
*************
That's one giant "if". We might have a better chance of driving our cars out there...Toyotas, in fact.
Complain about this comment
Ref 229, Nevada_Blue
Although I supported all the manned programs (Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, Shuttle, ISS) I was always more fond of unmanned and deep space missions. They did not have the glamor of manned missions, but they were more rewarding, had a greater focus on learning...for a fraction of the cost.
HST and Landsat were also fantastic projects...
Complain about this comment
Re #229 Nevada_Blue on NASA funding.
Here's hoping that Congress will vote on NASA long term objectives (incl. heavy lift) as well as the whole federal budget for FY 2011 only after November election.
When there may be more willingness for across the aisle cooperation.
P.S. If you ask me, I would sacrifice almost anything in NASA short term programs if it resulted in devoting meaningful resorces (both money and manpowerwise) to developping desperately needed better (much faster) propulsion system. [this almost century old chemical stuff has to go]
Complain about this comment
Ref 233, powermeerkat
The Apollo flight computer was the first to use integrated circuits, had 2048 words of erasable magnetic core memory and 36 kilowords of read-only core memory. The memory word length was 16 bits.
When were you iun Gran Canaria. My first visit was in 1945, with my parents (my Dad was born there), and I worked in Maspalomas from 1960 to 1965, when I transferred to the Deep Space sites in Robledo and Cebreros, not far from El Escorial. From there I went to Goldstone, California, and from there to the Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, with a short stint in Bermuda and frequent visits to White Sands, Marshall Space Flight Center, AMES and a location nearby.
Complain about this comment
Re # 234
"We might have a better chance of driving our cars out there...Toyotas, in fact."
Andrea, if you mean faster propulsion, Toyotas sure give you better acceleration.
Without you even having to step on it. :-)
P.S. Waiting for Mr. Toyoda's explanations. And much deeper bows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrola, go with a throttle up!
- Roger, go with a...
[expletive deleted] Houston, we have a problem!
Complain about this comment
post 211 Powermeerkat
"How is the work on A350 progressing"
Ouch,the A350 has had some teething troubles electrical being one glitch.
With all large projects,during the shake down period,things Flag up.I do think the Dream liner concept is a better one,with its ability to operate
from smaller regional aerodromes.I have over the last three years but one,gone fly drive to New England in autumn,driven through,NewHampshire Vermont & Maine,brill.But last year could not face Heath-row or Gatwick again,our main Hubs are so awful.As for the A350 with many many more passengers forget it...
I do remember you saying words to the effect,you are knowledgeable on
military air craft,did you fly or work in aviation?.My only claim to fame
in that direction is that during the 80s`,achieved my goal of a private pilots licence.It was not easy,& as my long suffering instructor kept saying "any landing you walk away from is a good one"!.
Disclaimer,
No anti-Americanisms,
Implied, Intensional, Unintentional or subliminal,to any American,Dead
Alive or yet to be Born was intended.{`_*}...
Complain about this comment
Re #237
SaintDominick. I visited Canaries (incl. Gran Canaria) much, much later.
Decades after you. And always as a tourist.
I remember being in GC (Puerto de Mogan area- lovely, although crowded marina btw.) e.g., during the Spanish referendum on EU Constitution.
I remember this stay distinctly, because weather being rather inclement (low ceiling, fog, etc.) I went to a reception desk and asked whether somebody knew how to get a copy of the document Spanish TV was talking about ad nauseam.
Turned out that a concierge, a handsome bright young and very helpful man happened to have a copy.
Took it to my suite, started to read and after about half an hour fell asleep. Tried to read it 2 o 3 more times. Falling asleep again.
And again.
Finally, on the following day, I simply leafed though it.
That's when I first began to suspect that the EU Constitution had been made unreadable on purpose. Later it turned out I was not only one who got that impression.
BTW Lovely islands to fly and hover over. Especially GC and T.
P.S. Re White Sands. Emergency shuttle landing site (among other things).
Truth or Consquences, eh? :)
Complain about this comment
Ref 240, powermeerkat
"P.S. Re White Sands. Emergency shuttle landing site (among other things)."
The main facilities that comprise NASA's Tracking Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) are in White Sands, New Mexico, where they share the land with other interesting facilities...
Complain about this comment
As long as Congress remains beholden to vested interests there can be no meaningful health-care reform. Extending the program, for whatever altruistic reason, only increases and further entrenches the corruption.
Complain about this comment
Re#239 "any landing you walk away from is a good one"!.
"Still walking after all these years" ;)
to paraphrase words of the well known known Boston waltz song.
[And no, a flame-out is not a particularly pleasant thing.
[at any speed, even without Toyota-made afterburners]
P.S. Airbus' (EADS') problems as I see it are less of technological nature (Thales pitot sticks, etc. notwithstading) as far as I see, but more of a financial/political ones.
Problems with A-380, R&D problems with A-350, and with A-400M cost have been caused to a large extent by EU behemoth's POLITICAL considerations.
You cannnot run a business efficiently if you're not allowed to integrate you software, reduce by at least 50% number of national hardware subcontractors, let alone to lay off dead wood.
Because Mr. Sarkozy, Mz. Merkel, Mr. Zapatero, Mr. Berlusconi and Mr. Brown have to show that they protect their countries' jobs.
Even if it means that all EU taxpayers have to cough up muchos dineros
to support a highly inefficient operation.
[BTW. the same applies to the disastrous Galileo program]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Houst..err..Brussels, we have a problem!
-Airbus, this is Brussels, please stand by! We're working on it.
Complain about this comment
Re valid points raised by both SaintDominick and Nevada_Blue
[any connection, excuse the pun, to the latest iteration Blue Gene-L, by any chance? :)] pertaining to NASA's robotic versus manned missions...
Romanticism of the "quest" notwithstading there's nothing really interesting in Earth's vicinity (well UFOs aside, of course).
You have to go into deep space (outside the system) if you want to ever encounter/find something "completely different"
And a comparison of a cost of creating a relatively safe working environment for humans, versus creating a working env. for computers, scopes and sensors does not require any comment.
Finally, as much as I hate to admit it, we (humans) have become the weakest link as far as piloting is concerned.
I have reasons to believe that the next generation of US military planes
(particularly hypersonic strategic bombers) is going to be fully UAVs:
Our reflexes are far too slow for Mach 6-10+ speeds, and very few of us can withstand much more than 6G for more than a couple of secs.
I'm afraid, we have to go.
Unless some of us live long enough to be at least partially cyborgized.
[hope springs eternal]
regards to both of you,
Complain about this comment
Re SD on White Sands...
Yep, lots of history, and of quite interesting facilities. ;-)
BTW. Have you been to Socorro?
A v. interesting place, and almost fully opened to tourists.
[including of course our British cousins]
Complain about this comment
Thanks for the regards, Powermeerkat; enjoyed the digression to space with you and SaintDominick, since I'm a big science fan. I vividly recall my childhood excitement at reading saved Mercury/Gemini articles and a Willy Ley book while staying up to watch the first Apollo telecasts, then disappointment over the years as I could see national enthusiasm and momentum for space exploration waning.
Now, even after decades of budget constraints, NASA's 'missions' web page is an amazing window to the earth, our solar system, and the universe, a site well worth a visit.
I've taken the family to the WSMR museum and the NM Space History Museum in nearby Alamogordo. An older relative learned his photography trade in the Army at WSMR back in the early days there.
Blue in my 'handle' is not about computers, more about sage and politics: there was a good movie relevant to an older question in Mark's archives about the 'special relationship' for USA/UK, it's called "A Matter of Life and Death" (1946) in which a lead character says he is "conservative by upbringing, labor by experience", and I've changed some of my opinions in a similar fashion over time.
Back on topic, I'm hopeful that progress for health insurance / cost reform comes out of the ongoing meetings.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS