The health of nations: Obama and reform
So, where were we? (Yes, I had a lovely break, thanks for asking ... walking in Scotland, and the sun shone every day.)
Well, before I hung up my microphone two weeks ago, President Obama was trying to make progress with his healthcare reform proposals. Two weeks on, guess what? President Obama is still trying to make progress with his healthcare reform proposals.
What's new is that the British National Health Service is now playing a central role in the US debate. "Socialised medicine" - in other words, health care provided by the State - is anathema to American conservatives, and they're using the NHS as a warning of what they say Mr Obama is trying to introduce.
It's not often that political debate in America is influenced by what happens in the UK. (I don't think I'd claim the same was true vice versa.) But the current debate in the US does have some echoes of the debate Britain went through in the 1940s when the medical establishment here fought tooth and nail to prevent the establishment of the NHS.
Incidentally, British Conservatives (with the exception of the occasional maverick like MEP Daniel Hannan, who has been popping up on US TV networks) insist that unlike their American equivalents, they are devoted supporters of the NHS.
Just last night, the party leader, David Cameron, sent out an email to supporters saying: "Millions of people are grateful for the care they have received from the NHS - including my own family. One of the wonderful things about living in this country is that the moment you're injured or fall ill - no matter who you are, where you are from, or how much money you've got - you know that the NHS will look after you."
But President Obama undoubtedly is finding his ideas tough to sell. And it could be that one reason is that he has not yet put together a detailed package, which means there are still many unanswered questions about cost and the small print.
Robert Reich, who was a key figure in President Clinton's first administration, wrote this week: "The White House is waiting to see what emerges from the House and Senate before insisting on what it wants ... But that's the problem: It's always easier to stir up fear and anger against something that's amorphous than to stir up enthusiasm for it."
No American needs reminding that Hillary Clinton tried - and failed - to introduce healthcare reform in 1994. The Obama team say they have learned from the mistakes made then ... that they are working with Congress and health care professionals rather than against them to come up with a package that will be politically acceptable.
The stakes are certainly high, not least for the 46 million Americans (that's about 15 per cent of the population) who have no health insurance. President Obama has invested huge amounts of personal political credibility in getting a deal through ... and his administration will be seriously damaged if he fails.
How important is it? Look at it this way: according to the political news website Politico.com, which says it has analysed just about every word the President has uttered in public since his inauguration, he has used the word "health" more often than "Iraq", "Iran", "Afghanistan", and "terrorism" combined.
That's how important it is.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~43~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
It will be great to make the dream become reality. However from engineering perspective, I wish President Obama do realize the huge gap between dream and reality and have a real plan to close this gap. I admire his guts.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The rabid right neocons LOST the Presidential election, but they are in denial!
However the British Tories will find it very hard to convince us all that as a party they support the NHS. (I a very willing to accept that David Cameron is wholeheartedly behind the NHS due to his personal knowledge and experience)
However, as there always has been, there is a huge iceberg of libertarian idiots in the Tory party who will do their best to wreck his coronation. Daniel Hannan can be added to the long list of mis-speakers (Boris J, Andrew D. etc, etc) Basically the Tories have not changed their spots. They are the same rabid twits who under Mrs Thatcher closed the 'excess' hospital beds in London and sold off or tried to sell off the hospital sites through their estate agent friends to property companies! The NHS is NOT safe in their hands!
The American people, with health insurance, begrudge the one fifth without any health care at all. They are in the majority and basically don't dive a hoot what happens to the uninsured. That is the true nature of American society - it is not a nice place! And we should not be taken in by their media propaganda and should not go there or join in with their silly military adventures without question. Luckily we avoided Vietnam, and it is to eternal discredit that we joined them in Iraq! The USA is the archetypical and epitome of the selfish society taken to the extreme - and not British! We are fooled, or fool ourselves, into thinking we are like them - we are not. They are the society that when seeing the poor man in the gutter walks by on the other side!
Complain about this comment
Congress decided to take their annual August recess and some brave members held townhall sessions with their constituency. As expected health care reform was the most emotional topic being discussed. It appears that there has been an organized but surreptitious movement to fill the meeting places with loud and unrestrained opposition mobs. There are four different bills being shepherded through Congress. One provision of one of the bills which called for doctors to discuss with terminally ill patients how much treatment they will tolerate has had to be dropped after Obama was attacked for wanting to introduce euthanasia into the US medical system through this provision. Cries of socialized medicine have been very effective in mobilizing opposition to health care reform. This happens to be standard practice for the Republican party who even opposed the introduction of Medicare in 1969 for seniors over 65 years of age. Medicare's huge success and popularity you might think would curb such foolish sloganeering but you would be wrong. The
Republicans are hoping that the uninformed public will not notice that not just the government run Medicare program but also the even more successful veteran's health care program are also "socialized" medicine. However no matter how much the private health insurance programs under which most Americans get their health care paid for often falls short of their medical needs polls indicate 85% claim to be very satisfied with the current system. For example, private health insurers readily reject new applications based on pre-existing medical conditions. So an illness of a chronic nature will often not be covered in many cases. It doesn't seem to bother many Americans that most rich industrial nations have universal health care systems in which govenment subsidies or government run hospitals and medical providers play a large role.
Complain about this comment
It is of course understandable that they are using the example of the NHS. Of all the socialized medical care systems (at least around Europe), it is very far from being the best. Even so, the thought of being very ill and having a money grabbing US insurer saying your not covered, makes me very glad of the NHS, despite its general crapness.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Lustig, have you been away? I hadn't noticed.
John From Helldom
"That is the true nature of American society - it is not a nice place!"
Then I can count on you not coming here. I'm grateful for the little things in life. You are the epitome of why I hate Europe and have as much contempt for Europeans and their societies as they have for mine. Your lies demonstrate that you either are a very ignorant man or you are merely so jealous you can't contain yourself. Are you sure you're not French? How do you know, have you checked into it lately?
Complain about this comment
I have been following the discussions on a Deep South Forum.
When the absurd scare messages are excluded, one issue remains:
Does the state, in a just society, have the duty to assure that all citizens have nedical care at least equal to the average?
Expressed in simpler terms: is the right to medical care equal to the right to police protection?
When all details are swept away, this basic issue remains.
Once that is clearly decided, the best way of delivering medical care can be worked out.
Complain about this comment
#6. MarcusAureliusII wrote:
You remain a true barbarian! - I hope you don't find that your medical insurance expires just after your two dogs have ripped your throat out! You accuse me of lying! - I haven't! One fifth of your fellow Americans have no health insurance and you and you insurance funded neocons and fellow travellers want it to remain that way! You are quite prepared to let poverty decide which of your fellow Americans lives or dies. I repeat: you and your rabid right neocons LOST the Presidential election, but you are in denial! What is your NRA membership number again?
Not only have you repeatedly denied humanity to every other people in the World, you also deny it to your fellow Americans!
PS please desist from slandering our fellow Europeans, the French!
Complain about this comment
John from Helldom;
I don't mind being called a barbarian for if it is true then I am what I am. The difference between us us that I recognize that it might be true while you are cock sure you are a civilized man when in fact you are no better than I am. That is what this is really about and why I am superior to you. I can see reality when you and your kind cannot and will not. The fact is that the country you live in has been as barbaric as any in history and its material comforts such as they exist are largely the products of theft of countless lives and property of other nations in crimes against humanity committed over centuries and subsequent to that when it was no longer possible to the largesse of the People of the United States of America who rescued the UK in three world wars and facilitated the reconstruction of it when it was broke in 1945. This so called special relation seems very one sided to me since prior to that the only relation the UK had with the US was two wars, one in the 17th century and then one shortly afterwards early in the 18th century.
While I may be a barbarian, I must correct you in that I am definitely not a neocon and I did not lose in the last election or if you mean candidates or parties I supported lost you are wrong. I did not vote in the last election feeling all viable candidates, those who had a chance of winning were unqualified to hold office although for different reasons.
How typical of Europeans to characterize a complex issue such as paying for health care in the US by oversimplifying a very complex issue to the point of an absurdity to set it up as a straw man to knock down.
I am well aware that 47 million Americans don't have health insurance. That does not mean they don't get health care. It means that they may have to pay for it out of pocket or if they are financially destitute, then someone else pays for it. If people didn't get medical care in the US, they'd be dying in the streets like flies. Even illegal aliens get medical care when they need it. Nobody can be turned away at a public hospital for lack of money. The head of the oncology department at a large hospital in Texas recently lamented the fact that his department could no longer afford to give free world class cancer treatment to illegal aliens. Who do you think paid for that?
I personally have an excellent plan I pay for out of my own pocket. I am free to use practically any doctor whether a general practicioner or specialist and any hospital in the state for a low co-pay. In an emergency away from home, I am also covered. There are no free medical services anywhere in the world. Not in the UK, not in Cuba, not in Russia, nowhere. One way or another doctors, nurses, hospitals, lab technicians, orderlies all get paid by someone even if it is hidden in taxes.
One thing Americans do not want is a British style NHS or a Canadian style one or anyone elses. President Obama's hopes and expectations have been dashed by the reality that the American people will not accept what he had in mind. Don't kid yourself. The fact is that the WHO report notwithstanding, American medical care is the finest by far in the world. It's also the most expensive. Our medical system is not broken, it works excellently...most times. BBC's correspondent Justin Webb found that out during his stay in Washington DC. His child got sick, was immediately diagnosed with type one diabetes, the treatment begun, and everything explained in complete detail. Upon his departure to the UK, instructions were given on how to keep his child's treatment going. Most advances in medical science occur in the United States. Most people with money who get seriously ill go to the United States for treatment because they can't get the equivalent at home. The statistics for lifespan often cited are deliberately misleading by proponents of socialized medicine in the US. According to a Canadian doctor who testified before a Congressional Committee, when you take out deaths by murder and motor vehicle accidents, Americans have the greatest life expectency in the world in spite of their often unhealthy lifestyle largely due to their medical system. He said that there are three times as many MRIs per capita in America as in Canada. Others have reported that the odds of surviving a serious illness like cancer are four times as great in the US as in the UK. How we figure out how to pay for this equitably without bankrupting the country in way that everyone of our citizens can enjoy the highest level of care our system can provide is a problem that has perplexed our economists and politicians for over half a century. But we are not going to trade in a broken pay out system for a broken medical system like the lamentable NHS Brits suffer through. We have no waiting lists, no rationing of care, and we will not accept that. And most of our hospitals are spotlessly clean too.
Complain about this comment
Marcus, how typical of you to spew your hatred of an entire continent and you're usual position of every nation taking advantage of the poor old USA.
Disregarding all that, you make one valid point (the first one in while, so pat yourself on the back); there are no free medical services in the world.
But here's the thing, do you want a system that not only rewards with money those who devise and carry out the treatments, but one that also has a seemingly superfluous 'industry' tacked on the end? And would you rather live in a society that aims to look after all, or just those who can pay?
I understand that Government institutions are rarely a model of efficiency but on the other hand, private health insurance seems to be an unnecessary lottery in which cover is unclear and the primary goal of those holding the purse strings is to not spend money! That's not a good starting point for medical treatment.
Complain about this comment
Robin:
Thanks, for the informative information regarding the Health Care...And, also, I hope that you enjoy your time in Scotland....
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment
#9. MarcusAureliusII wrote at length...
Barbarius - I think there is one essential fact in your contribution that is quite interesting to the rest of us and may further explain your attitudes (many of which I abhor as you know) to many things: this is that you do not participate in society (You wrote: "I did not vote in the last election").
Your attitudes to democracy suggests that you see yourself as outside society and reject all of and everything about society and its mechanisms of social management. You reject the idea that we are all in some way responsible for our fellow human beings. This notion has been a part of society since well before time immemorial in some from or other, and probably even pre-dates recorded religions.
Returning the health care: Everything has to be paid for. However even a biblical Samaritan did not pass by on the other side (Luke 10:30), you see everyone except yourself as something 'other', and less than yourself, and that your absolute selfishness permeates the vast majority of your contributions.
The question of payment is complex, but the NHS has as its basis that it is free at the time of 'need', not that it is in some absolute sense 'free'. Your insurance system causes you to pay premiums whether you are sick or not and you are thus paying for the health care of others intermediated through an insurance company. A truly private, and absolutely selfish system, has the patient paying when they are sick and paying nothing when they are well - (i.e. self insurance.) q.v. getting your gas guzzler fixed when it goes wrong but not insuring against its breakdown. By admitting that you use health insurance you are using already using a socialist health system! (Albeit one mediated through capitalism.)
The question that needs to be asked is: does your selfishness allow you to walk by on the other side, or not. I think that, in your case, this is the case, and you are a 'societal rejectionist' [There is probably a well defined sociological / psychological term for your type of personality - 'absolute egotism'(?)] and that you reject millennia of altruistic choices made by human beings and this is why I so often accuse you of lacking humanity in your opinions. Your whole life is a continuous struggle to keep out the World and other people. I ask you the examine the logic of your position: by committing genocide, as you often advocate as a 'solution' to all the ills of the World, might you not be murdering the doctor who finds a cure for your own illness!
Complain about this comment
John from Helldom, you must be dense;
"The question of payment is complex, but the NHS has as its basis that it is free at the time of 'need', not that it is in some absolute sense 'free'. Your insurance system causes you to pay premiums whether you are sick or not and you are thus paying for the health care of others intermediated through an insurance company."
You pay taxes that support the NHS whether you are sick or not. My $30 copay at a doctor's office barely pays for one bag of groceries. At a hospital I walk out without any bill just like you do. The difference...I don't have to be put on a waiting list and the MRI's CAT scanners, and labs are ready and waiting for those who need them 24 hours a day, seven days a week. But I don't even have to wait that long, the ambulance is well equipped and has an EMT staff that begins treatment in an emergency as soon as they arrive at my house. I might be in an MRI or in an operating room within fifteen to twenty minutes of their arrival if that's what it takes to save my life.
"Your attitudes to democracy suggests that you see yourself as outside society and reject all of and everything about society and its mechanisms of social management."
Quite the opposite. It is your society I reject. I usually vote for the lesser of the evils, the least incompetent. This time I voted NO! Even the least worst of them was unacceptable.
"You reject the idea that we are all in some way responsible for our fellow human beings."
That is the attitude that leads to dictatorship, to tyranny. From each according to his ability to each according to his need. There but for the grace of god go I. In a real community people help each other because they like each other, they want to help each other, not because they are forced to the way they are in socialist Europe. That only breeds resentment and hatred. When you are forced to help all other people in society in every possible one of their needs from cradle to grave, this gives the government the justification to tax every last cent you work for and earn. This is one more reason Europe is a failure. Just stick around and watch its unsustainable social safety net economies collapse. All that would really be needed to topple them instantly would be for the US to pull out of NATO and tell Europeans to pay for defending themselves if they feel threatened. It's something I've advocated for a long time. There is no justification for Americans bearing the burden of that cost one day longer.
"your absolute selfishness permeates the vast majority of your contributions." "you reject millennia of altruistic choices"
Ayn Rand would be proud. My philosophy of life is "neither a follower nor a leader be." How lucky I was to have read the short book of essays by Rand and Brandon called "The Virtue of Selfishness" when I was young that convinced me my instincts were exactly right. The only religion or nationality I have allegience to is "me." That means that if I love someone else, that love is very valuable. When those of your mind say they love someone, it is virtually worthless. I make no apologies for being a rational objective human being who owes nothing to anyone, was not born into original sin, and feels no shame or inhibitions about living my life exclusively for my own benefit.
Complain about this comment
Kinda tempting to join yet another Europe vs America bashing...
Well in a magazine dealing with this problem of Mr. Obama it listed also various figures from European countries such as France the UK and Germany and compared them with the equivalents from the US. While the numbers for avaiable beds in hospitals and doctors per capita was about the same for all countries the costs for this in the US was more than twice as high.
Even if the life expectancy in the states was higher if one would drop all those dying thanks to the silly NRA and their right to bear arms (why would there be more deaths due to motor vehicle accidents? you even have speed limits on your highways and average cars are also longer so that one would guess they'd also be safer than the rather economical ones over here in Europe), I certainly doubt that it justifies twice the costs per capita. So either some pharmaceutical companies or some insurance companies make a fortune out of the fear that the treatment patients would get was not as good as any possible.
Bottom line is that from the cost angle it can't get much worse than it is today.
Complain about this comment
Yep, now I get it. The NHS only works because of NATO. Of course, everything is clear. Just how deluded can someone get?
Why can't we hear from someone in the USA as to what healthcare really costs, what's covered, what isn't, etc? And why they prefer a system administrated by profit seeking companies?
Complain about this comment
Marcus wrote "I make no apologies for being a rational objective human being who owes nothing to anyone, was not born into original sin, and feels no shame or inhibitions about living my life exclusively for my own benefit."
I must be terribly wearing to have to calculate that you are not at risk of benefiting anyone else each time, Marcus, in line with Ms Rand's prescription. No doubt you carry a iPhone with a calculator ap to do this when challenged by a "Good Samaritan situation"
But I don't understand why you pay insurance which is a pooling of funds to be allocated for each (in the pool) according to his ability and everyone according to their needs whether its a private insurance or not.
You might be interested in Mr Hannan MEP's (Fox News) preference for the Singapore system of compulsory saving + run out insurance. See Daily Telagraph today) Maybe Mr Obama would like that too.
Alternatively you can bear the risk of needing most surgical procedures yourself by saving up. But come to England for care in the private wings of our state hospitals. Bring you credit card. Prices range from $4000-$18000 depending on the procedure all in + sales tax of course.
Some of us English (note that the Scots and Welsh are different) do this from time to time and it's far less risky that the real private sector. (they might ask you for a donation but you can tell them that you are a Ms Rand fan and don't believe in States)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
You Europeans would like to think I am a lone voice, the rare exception. You don't want to consider that there are a lot of people in the world including many in my country who don't like your country, your government, your society, your way of life, and resent the abuse Europeans have heaped on America continuously since time forgotten despite the enormous sacrifices Americans have made on Europe's behalf so many countless times and in so many ways. You don't want to believe it is true because your idea of how the world is and should be has nothing in common with that view, one that holds your entire civilization in utter contempt and dismisses it as worthless. But that is how I see it. All over the world, Europe has left its countless scars on every corner of the globe, on every race for well over a thousand years. Now those chickens are all coming home to roost and Europe will get its just deserts. Nor can Europeans and even Brits count on the continued support and good will of Americans or their government, not only because they don't want to support it anymore but because for a variety of reasons including recent gross mismanagement of its economy America no longer has the wherewithall for it. When forced to choose between social welfare and medical care at home without higher taxes on one hand and continuing to allow the one way economic and military relationship in the sham of an alliance called NATO, the sham of fair trade treaty called the WTO, guess what Americans will demand of their government. It's already happening. President Obama has told American corporations that the long standing practice of deferring tax on profits earned overseas until they were repatriated which meant never will end. This is good news for Americans and bad news for everyone else. There is much more that can, should, and will be done to put America back to work for the benefit of Americans as its first priority. If companies like General Electric don't like it then they can get out of America and find somewhere else to roost.
Later this week if and when the UK releases the only man convicted of the mass murder of nearly 300 Americans by planting a bomb on a Pan American airplane in Germany that blew up over Lockerbee Scotland, there will be an uproar in the US that will be hard for Brits to believe. It will be even worse if he gets a heroes welcome on his return to Libya.
Complain about this comment
Sarah Phlegm
"Even if the life expectancy in the states was higher if one would drop all those dying thanks to the silly NRA and their right to bear arms..."
Having an armed populace means that Nazis, communists, Redcoats, Hessians, and other miscreants can't take over America. In the US, the population is in control over the government and not the other way around the way it is in other countries. Secret police knocking on a door in the middle of the night would often be met by a hail of flying lead. There are probably almost as many guns in private hands in America as there are people. In other countries the population is defenseless against the government and other criminals who always find a way to get guns.
"(why would there be more deaths due to motor vehicle accidents? you even have speed limits on your highways and average cars are also longer so that one would guess they'd also be safer than the rather economical ones over here in Europe)"
We drive far more miles. We have a big country and we travel a lot. Some people travel a hundred miles or more to work every day...each way. The automobile is just part of American life. About 50,000 Americans die every year in motor vehicle accidents. About as many die about every five weeks on our roads as died in Iraq in six years. American cars are much safer than most European cars, much safer. Even European export versions of cars shipped to the US were in the past safer than their domestic counterparts used in Europe. I don't know if that's still true but it might be. There are some European cars that are regarded as relatively safe and test well even by American standards. Larger Mercedes and Volvos are two of them.
"I certainly doubt that it justifies twice the costs per capita."
We pay our doctors well. A top cardiac surgeon might make as much in one operation as his Russian counterpart would make in a year. We expect a lot out of them and we don't settle for less than the best the science has to offer. Our doctors practice defensive medicine. They must, they have no choice. Lawyers are at the ready anxious to sue any and all doctors and hospitals on their clients' behalf for millions for a large contingency fee of course, for any mishap or mistake they make. We even have a class of lawyers who specialize in medical malpractice cases we refer to derogatorily as "ambulance chasers." A test that was overlooked and should have been made, or one that was misinterpreted, a medicine that was inappropriate, a dosage that was misread or administered incorrectly results in law suits here. Doctors must also carry expensive malpractice insurance. When you hear talk of "tort reform" it is doing away with these lawsuits the doctors are talking about. Won't happen. Lawyers make the laws...for each other. It is a basic right and principle of America that if you are injured through incompetence or negligence on someone's part, they must pay you compensation to "make you whole." How much is that? That's up to a judge or jury depending on what state it happened in.
"So either some pharmaceutical companies or some insurance companies make a fortune out of the fear that the treatment patients would get was not as good as any possible."
Ever hear of Celebrex? Vioxx? Those and a whole class of similar drugs are now the subject of major class action lawsuits against Merck and other large pharmaceutical companies. If the plaintiffs win, awards could run to the hundreds of millions, maybe more. It costs $100,000,000 to bring a drug to market. For every one that succeeds, nine others fail. So the successes must cover the cost of the failures too. Pharmaceutical companies aren't in business for the fun of it but for profit. If you think they do so well, why aren't their stocks continuously rising? Under any other system, there are no medical advances. There wasn't one significant advance in the science of medicine in the USSR in 72 years.
Insurance companies charge premiums based on risk and the degree of coverage. If there were socialized medicine or some kind of national health insurance, I'd have to pay higer premiums in the form of taxes because I'd be in the same risk pool as people who live very dangerous lifestyles by choice by being drug addicts, alcoholics, smoke tobacco, are pathalogically obese, and other lifestyles they voluntarily opt for. How would you like to be in the same risk pool for auto insurance as people who drive motorcycles without wearing helmets or people who drive drunk? Why should I be forced to absorb their higher rates of claims by paying higher premiums to cover them too?
"Bottom line is that from the cost angle it can't get much worse than it is today."
Yes it can and it will unless something is done. What we don't want to do is wreck the best system there is by cutting the heart out of it with false economies that shorten lives or make life more painful or limited than it has to be the way Europe, Canada and others do.
No Cipro, I think the Singapore system stinks. We won't have that one here either. Why should I go to the UK for incompetent medical care in a filthy hospital where I might be put on a waiting list for treatment when I'm covered here. BTW, if I were in the UK and needed medical care in an emergency, my insurance would cover it. When I lived in France, a bunch of us from the US and Canada visited the hospital in Bordeaux. We agreed among ourselves after having seen it that if one of us got really sick, the others would help him get back to North America any way we could if he needed help getting there. Short of that, we agreed to get that person to the American medical mission in Paris. Don't know what that hospital looks like now but it was rather grim looking when we saw it.
Complain about this comment
Marcy, tsk tsk, I thought you knew better than to include verifiable statements within your posts, much better to stick to 'opinions'.
A quick net search reveals that average mileage in the USA doesn’t appear to be much higher than most other places - and a greater proportion of this would be on quieter roads. I'd guess the higher accident rates were due to a combination of less safe roads and remoteness from medical care at the time of accidents.
You're persisting in the clap trap about US market cars being safer. We've covered this one several times; whatever small amount of truth existed in the statement has long since disappeared. We're no longer in the 1970s. There are some American cars that are regarded as relatively well designed, but not many.
Here's the funniest one though. Do you really think that socialised medicine systems are buying drugs at knock down prices? Medical equipment and treatments are marketed just like everything else. Whether or not you agree with the market-led approach to drug development (the drives competition vs. duplication of resources argument) makes no difference. The likes of the NHS are the end user, not the developer. Last time I checked there were an awful lot of very expensive cars in the Consultants section of my local NHS hospital; I don't think they do too badly. Nurses on the other hand...
It's good to hear that you believe the whole country to be so scared of its Government that it has to own a firearm. I'm well aware where the original right to bear arms originates, but you can't actually believe that most folks keep a pistol in the sock draw to take shots at their local Senator can you? There are all kinds of old rights and customs that made perfect sense at the time but have been abandoned due to progress.
Complain about this comment
"who don't like your country, your government, your society, your way of life, and resent the abuse Europeans have heaped on America continuously" is that so? Then I don't really understand how the UK France and Germany are the three most popular countries in the world according to the NBI while the US are behind Canada and Japan even...
"Having an armed populace means that Nazis, communists, Redcoats, Hessians, and other miscreants can't take over America."
Now that sentence is completely nuts... It also means they can get arms easyly and do whatever crime they want to with them. I am also a bit afraid that the country with the best population in the world according to you would even need this while all other western democracies run fine without it.
[this part is too long to quote it really]
Wow now I am surprised that you even think having to pay on average twice as much for medical service through all your life long just to statistically become 1-2% older. Personally I would have suggested reconsidering if someone really needs to be paid some couple hundreds of million dollars just because of a mistake a doctor makes. (I still believe they are human beings even in America - and human beings do mistakes). I seriously have no clue how to check whether those mistakes happen more or less often because of the purely insane fines.
"Insurance companies charge premiums based on risk and the degree of coverage. If there were socialized medicine or some kind of national health insurance, I'd have to pay higer premiums in the form of taxes because I'd be in the same risk pool as people who live very dangerous lifestyles by choice by being drug addicts, alcoholics, smoke tobacco, are pathalogically obese, and other lifestyles they voluntarily opt for."
That makes not that much sense either. Firstly we have an equal system (maybe not to the same extend but risky lifestyles get punished as well). However it doesn't make much sense that a system which tries to evaluate the risk of someone in every detail costs twice as much money in the end so that you are likely to pay more than me as I'd guess neither of us is really a drug addicted motorcyclyst, while those risky persons have to pay less here as well. So that in the end both the motor cyclyst and a person like you end up with higher costs. I also consider it strange that you have to fetch out as far as USSR just to justify American pharmaceutical industries.
"We drive far more miles." That actually may be true but isn't a lot of the mileage either being completely stuck or going at slow peace in a city like NY (hard to have lethal accidents while not even reaching 20 mph) or long travels from one urban center to the next with rather low amounts of traffic?
I don't actually think it matters how safe American or european cars are: America had 2.5 times as many leathal traffic collisions in 2008 as Germany per capita. However in 55% of those accidents the persons didnt wear their seatbelt. So even the safest car in the world won't safe you if you are simply to stupid to use the built in safety mechanisms... Do insurance companies ask you whether you wear a seatbelt?
Complain about this comment
Sarah Phlegm, I should have learned a long time ago not to argue with a dunce.
"isn't a lot of the mileage either being completely stuck or going at slow peace in a city like NY"
If you're stuck in traffic you don't rack up many miles. It could take an hour to an hour and a half to drive the six miles from where I used to live in Queens to midtown Manhatten in rush hour on the Long Island Expressway. I do the 32 miles from where I live in central New Jersey to just across the border in Pennsylvania in about 45 minutes. I know many of America's primary and secondary schools have not done well but if your statement above is any indication of the quality of its counterpart in Europe, it's even far worse. You can sit in traffic for and hour and not go one block. Time does not equal distance. Didn't they teach you anything in school?
"So even the safest car in the world won't safe you if you are simply to stupid to use the built in safety mechanisms... Do insurance companies ask you whether you wear a seatbelt?"
What you Europeans don't know about America would fill every factual book about America in the New York City Public Library. Do they ask? No they don't have to. If a cop stops you and sees you are not wearing a seat belt you get a traffic ticket. He doesn't ask. Then it gets reported to your insurance company and your rates go up. They don't have to ask either. You get points on your license which stay with you for about 2 or 3 years depending on the state. Get enough points within a certain period for moving violations and you get your license suspended for six months. Do that three times and it is revoked. Driving in the United States is not a right, it is a privilege which is taken away if it is abused.
"Personally I would have suggested reconsidering if someone really needs to be paid some couple hundreds of million dollars just because of a mistake a doctor makes."
Oh really? What if you had awakened in a hospital after coming out of anesthesia having needed your leg amputated and they amputated the wrong one? How much do you think that would be worth? What if you were prescribed Celebrex or Vioxx for pain because they told you it was better than asprin or ibuprofen and it put a hole in the wall of your heart? How much would that be worth to you?
crosseyes, you know as little or less about America than Sarah Phlegm does. A gun over the family hearth is as much an icon of life in America as there is. Guns and American culture go together and have since the earliest colonial times when people learned to rely on themselves first and foremost when facing life's dangers such as bears, Indians, and Redcoats as well as hunting for their food. The right of an American who has not been convicted of a felony to own a gun for personal protection, sport, and hunting is as inalienable as the right of freedom of speech, of the press, of petition to the government and the right of assembly. Every politician who challenged it committed instant political suicide. One such politician I saw do it back in the early 1970s was the then very popular up to that time Senator Joseph Tydings of Maryland. I lived there at that time. He went into political oblivion overnight campaigning for re-election on a platform of gun control. It was an issue in last year's presidential election that then candidate Obama sais he would not try to change. The guarantee of the right to bear arms was put in the Bill of Rights for a good reason. Despite our murder rate, we have far less to fear from each other than from a government run amok...like European governments among others have dont at times.
Complain about this comment
Marcy, I'm going to have people thinking that I actually write your posts, just to prove my own right. It isn't so, I promise!
As I said, I think I understand reasonably well the tradition and importance of the right the bear arms (and we're not talking about wearing t-shirts here!!!!) in the HISTORY of the USA. Doesn't make it a sensible policy for today does it now?
"One such politician I saw do it back in the early 1970s....." yawn, yawn, yawn. As I also said, how about an example that's actually in some way up to date. I don't mean to be cruel (maybe you're not so mobile these days?) but most of your 'anecdotes from the life of Marcy' come from a decade in which I only witnessed a small part. Do you not go outside any more?
However, I do have to agree with your point about mileage covered at low speed. Which does weigh the most, by the way, a tonne of feathers or a tonne of steel?
Complain about this comment
ps Marcy, I don't suppose you had any thoughts on my queries re: 'Your Facts'. Specifically why socialised medicine is able to swindle the poor drugs companies or any evidence for your assertions about modern USA market cars?
Incidentally, I've always been told that it's a long held (possibly never repealed) law that citizens of my home city are allowed (encouraged) to shoot Scottish people within the City boundary. So long as we use a bow an arrow. No doubt, at it's inception, the law served a useful purpose, but I haven't known anyone to test it's validity today.
Complain about this comment
"You can sit in traffic for and hour and not go one block." I have to admit that I haven't visited every major city in Europe but as far as the ones in which I was (including Paris, Berlin and London) I never saw that happening. Intersting that you seem to know every single city in the US by heart to know that it'll never happen anywhere.
"If a cop stops you and sees you are not wearing a seat belt you get a traffic ticket. He doesn't ask."
You completely ignore the basic of that point. It is a HARD FACT that 55% of those accidents are lethal with people not using seat belts. If they get punished by law for it or if the cops do some winky winky whenever they see someone just doesn't matter. Whatever it is they do doesn't seem to scare at least a good part of the inhabitants.
"Oh really? What if you had awakened in a hospital after coming out of anesthesia having needed your leg amputated and they amputated the wrong one? How much do you think that would be worth?"
Yet another ridiculous point as that doesn't happen here either even though no doctor is threatened with some hundred millions of penatly for the smallest error he might do. They'd simply lose the permission to work as surgeon if major mistakes happen. That is enough to keep them focus without raising the costs for surgery to ridiculous sums. Even if we stayed at your pathetic amounts of money for those things.. Why is one leg only worth say 50 millions? Why isn't it 50 trillions? I mean the person can't walk anymore? That must be more than the new debts some goverments make on a daily (hourly?) basis.
And about guns:
I am happy to live in a country in which it is somewhat harder for lunatics (which seem to exist everywhere) will have at least a minor problem to get their hands on firearms. The way you speak about guns as something with long history tradition and part of your culture, I am surprised that you abandoned slavery. You did that didn't you?
@ paul:
I get the impression that Marcus hibernated for one or two decades. All of his recent news are from the seventies or older; he considers Russians in general as evil commies. He even thinks American cars are among the best in the world. The more I think about it the more sense it makes. Maybe we can work out which years exactly he missed out. Shoul be at least 1980 till 2001 or something.
It is of course the feathers by the way ;-)
Complain about this comment
crosseyes;
"However, I do have to agree with your point about mileage covered at low speed. Which does weigh the most, by the way, a tonne of feathers or a tonne of steel?"
So someone in Europe actually KNOWS that if you put a car in park and idle the engine for 100,000 hours, it won't add one mile to the odometer. Well whadya know, money spent on public education in Europe isn't a complete waste after all.
Complain about this comment
...but no one in the Aurelius household (except perhaps the dogs) knows how to answer a direct question.
Let's start with an easier one: Which weighs the most, a tonne of Chevrolet or a ton of Daewoo?
Complain about this comment
crosseyes, where I live there is no such thing as a "tonne!" Could you rephrase your question in the American language so that I can understand it?
Complain about this comment
crosseyes;
"Let's start with an easier one: Which weighs the most, a tonne of Chevrolet or a ton of Daewoo?"
I looked up the word tonne in a dictionary that translates from foreign languages into the American language and it defined tonne as 1000 kilograms which equals about 2200 pounds. A ton on the other hand which is an American word is equivalent to 2000 pounds. So the correct answer is that the tonne of Chevrolet weighs more.
Now let's go on to a tougher question. How is it possible that someone who thinks drivers in America put lots of mileage on their cars by sitting idly in traffic for long hours going nowhere could get the European equivalent of an American high school diploma or do you think Sarah Phlegm never got one?
Complain about this comment
Well done Marcy, not only have you demonstrated the Engineers eye for detail and answered a question correctly, but you've done some up-to-date research on globally used units of measure. A busy day indeed.
Of course the flippant answer (and with the addition of an extra 'e') would be to say that both are the same anyway.
As for Seraphim85, I think it's pretty clear from his/her post that (s)he was talking about driving slowly rather than at a standstill.
Personally, I don't think that would account for the slightly higher mileage in the USA. The differences, such as they are, would come from medium length journeys (where a lot of Europeans have a train option) and the shorter suburbs to CBD ones - where USA cities tend to be more sprawly and have facilities located in car-accessible, more distant locations.
I can't comment on her/his ability to pass exams. My only experience of them is that they appear to be more perceptive, up-to-date, compassionate and open-minded than you. Of course, the tomato plant in my garden also fits that description.
So now that you've managed to answer a question (correctly!!!) and I've answered yours, how about commenting on your earlier assertions (or at least handing the keyboard over to Snoopy)?
Complain about this comment
crosseyes;
"You remain a true barbarian!"
I've enjoyed that comment about me since you made it. Surely it is to be expected. Like most Americans, my ancestors were the wretched refuse of other nations, not lordly well bred, well mannered folk like Brits (except for a few million drunken soccer hooligans and other assorted alohol binging sots.) Poor yes they were but tired? Hardly. In fact they were exceptionally ambitious and fearless to have made the one way journey into the unknown by coming here. And they worked hard to lead successful lives they never could have dreamt of living where they came from, largely Europe until recently. My own grandparents on both my father's and mother's side of my family came from Europe. This is a land of opportunities, not guarantees. Nobody is promised anythig except a chance. If they don't like that arrangement, the door is never locked from the inside, they are always free to leave to find their lives elsewhere. Except unlike other countries where people leave for good to come to places like this, few Americans including ex-pats really consider home anywhere else but America. I went to Europe in part out of curiousity to see what it was about first hand. And I found out. Technology may change, people may get richer, they may have more material posessions and live more comfortably in general than they did when I lived there 35 or so years ago but their basic nature hasn't changed one scintilla probably in millenia. Their culture doesn't die. As my own first hand experience witnessing it in France confirmed, the end of the second world war didn't end anti-semitism among Germans. I saw that for myself, I didn't need to read it in the newspaper. Anti-Amerianism in Europe has been around and rampant for a very long time, according to one American who wrote a book documenting the history of it a few years ago. And I see both and much more that is contemptable about Europe and European society frequently in the news and in the views of people on these blog sites at BBC. And so it is long overdue I think for Americans to express their true feelings towards Europe which at this moment is very negative among many. I know you don't want to believe that my views are in the majority here because it would disappoint you terribly but take it from me, the depth of hatred for Europe in the US right now when anyone even bothers to think about Europe is quite strong, deep, and widely felt. My views are just the tiniest tip of a very large iceberg. Just listen to the debate in the US regarding health care and how Americans see Britain's system if you don't believe it.
Complain about this comment
"how about commenting on your earlier assertions (or at least handing the keyboard over to Snoopy)?"
That will be a resounding 'NO" then.
I'm taking your boring sob story (in response to a statement that I didn't even make) that you are unable to back up any of your earlier statements. I'll leave JOHN FROM HENDON to trawl through the above rubbish; I haven't the time.
Complain about this comment
"So someone in Europe actually KNOWS that if you put a car in park and idle the engine for 100,000 hours, it won't add one mile to the odometer. Well whadya know, money spent on public education in Europe isn't a complete waste after all."
Well it seems to be far better wspend than any US Dollar as you seem to lack severely in your very own reading skills. I'll tryit again and please note the part in which in use caps lock. Maybe it even becomes clear to you (I highly doubt it)
"isn't a lot of the mileage either being completely stuck OR GOING AT SLOW PACE in a city like NY"
Maybe you give it another try and before you post something read it, try to understand and read it again. Deal?
While talking about education, diplomas or whatsoever. The last time that I had a conversation with someone who managed to ignore more than a dozen of direct questions anounced to him but on the other hand made fun about the tiniest error he spotted I was sitting next to a five year old. So congrats mate you reached the same level of education / maturity.
Complain about this comment
crosseyes;
"ps Marcy, I don't suppose you had any thoughts on my queries re: 'Your Facts'. Specifically why socialised medicine is able to swindle the poor drugs companies or any evidence for your assertions about modern USA market cars?"
Is this what you are yammering about? Do I have to state the obviious to you over and over again? For one thing large scale buyers have an advantage over individuals when buying anything. When you buy a million doses of a medicine you get a better price then when you buy a single ten day supply as an individual. That's how business works, volume discounts. That's one reason one proposal is for medical cooperatives. I know capitalism doesn't really exist where you come from but you'll just have to take my word for it. Also, countries like India and Brazil threatened the big drug companies that if they didn't get drugs they needed at cheap prices their populations could afford, they'd infringe on the patents on those medications and manufacture them themselves and there wouldn't be anything the drug companies could do about it. This is actually possible today. It's been especially true for the most effective AIDS treatments. Pharmaceutical companies have reconciled themselves to this reality and consider the deep discounts as charity. Since someone has to pay for the cost of developing these drugs so that the pharmaceutical companies can make a profit, guess who gets stuck with the highest cost for them. As a way to circumvent the high cost, some Americans go to Canada or Mexico to get their prescriptions filled or buy them over the internet. It isn't clear if that is illegal but even if it is legal, it's playing Russian roulette since you don't know what you'll be getting including counterfeit drugs made in places like China that are flooding the world market right now.
In what other country do cars get tested for crash worthiness and many other factors and rated by the government and private organizations like Consumers Union? Where else are manditory standards so tough? When I lived in France, 16,000 people who were the entire population of Grenoble lied down on the ground at precisely the same moment to demonstrate in their own stupid way that's how many French died in car accidents every year. They had about 1 million cars on the road then while about 40,000 to 50,000 Americans died having about 130 million cars on the road. And we do travel much further than they do. Most cars made for the European domestic market are not and cannot be exported to the US even in upgraded versions for a large variety of reasons including crashworthiness. Also pollution emissions. It's complicated but since standards were set here and continued to get tougher, the amount of smog and foul air in our cities has been reduced by a very high percentage. By contrast, sitting in an outdoor cafe in a French city was an experience I found usually unbearable due not only to the traffic noise but the choking stench of burning gasoline and diesel fuel. Between riding in European cars, seeing how Europeans drive, and the reality of so many monster semi trucks and even double semis on American roads as well as the number of passenger miles driven per capita the number of fatal traffic accidents in the US is surprisingly low here. Many of the deaths are the result of teenagers and those in their twenties who are inexperienced drivers, oblivious to how dangerous driving can be, have a higher rate of drunk driving, and consequently their insurance rates are much higher. In private insurance, premiums are connected to risk usually. In a government run health insurance program, those who are prudent and don't take unnecessary risks or behave recklessly with their lives will pay the same as those who don't care and do whatever they like. That's just one reason it stinks.
Sarah Phlegm, we've already established that you don't understand the difference between time traveled and distance traveled. Why don't you quit before you reveal another shortcoming in your understanding of the world and fall even further behind.
Complain about this comment
"In what other country do cars get tested for crash worthiness and many other factors and rated by the government and private organizations like Consumers Union?"
It is called EuroNCAP... and before you claim that is far inferior to the American equivalent:
"Some question whether the results of this regulatory philosophy and practice support a safety-related basis for the prohibition on ECE vehicles. The sizable auto safety lead enjoyed by the USA since the 1960s had slowed by 2002, with the US improvement percentages at 16th place (behind Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Great Britain, Iceland, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland) in terms of deaths per thousand vehicles. In terms of deaths per 100 million miles, the USA had dropped from first place to tenth place. With the partial exception of Canada, all of the countries achieving better safety results either require or permit vehicles built to comply with the ECE regulations, not the US regulations."
So even your excuse for everything discipline "accidents per mile" doesn't work as an excuse anymore really...
Oh right I forgot you still live in the 70s or something. Last time I compared a Ford from the seventies with brand new Mercedes the Ford sucked in every single way. Unlike you I know that such a comparison doesn't make much sense in the first place though.
Complain about this comment
wow it gets even better:
"Research on the trends in use of heavy vehicles indicate that a significant difference between the U.S. and other countries is the relatively high prevalence of pickup trucks and SUVs in the U.S. A 2003 study by the U.S. Transportation Research Board found that SUVs and pickup trucks are significantly less safe than passenger cars, THAT IMPORTED-BRAND VEHICLES TEND TO BE SAFER THAN AMERICAN-BRAND VEHICLES, and that the size and weight of a vehicle has a significantly smaller effect on safety than the quality of the vehicle's engineering."
Thats 2003 and by far more up to date than your experiences from the 70s
Is there actually ANYTHING left of the second half of your last post that was not proved to be completely wrong now? Help me find something if you like...
Complain about this comment
Marcus, I really am feeling very sorry for you. Every time you post, it just gets worse. Your car safety stuff has already being rubbished above.
We're not saying that your points weren't in some part true.....25 years ago, but that was then, and this is now. Sure, some random differences in car spec laws still exist but as for safety, Euro NCAP does indeed do exactly what you ask. Who cares if it was copied from the USA, to my knowledge it's been going more than ten years now.
Exactly the same goes for your "when I lived in france". Maybe if you'd sat outside an LA coffe shop in the same year you'd have experienced the same comfort. These days, maybe you'd just be shot. I'm being flippant of course, but who wants to let facts get in the way of a good rant?
FYI, my poor secondary school education gave me a rudimentary grasp of Capitalism (between the military parades and lectures on the importance of the work ethic, comrade!).
So I do understand that the NHS can appreciate the benefits of buying in bulk. I imagine USAF has similar benefits with Boeing etc. Where's the problem?
IP rights to drugs are a different issue. I'm not aware of anyone alleging that European medical systems are counterfeiting drugs, is that what you're saying?
As far as I know a lot of drugs are developed and made in Europe anyway, we are probably at a net gain if the drugs companies keep prices high. If they're artificially high then people are going to shop elsewhere and start making their own. If the companies all go broke, then we'll be in trouble (at least short term).
So there you go Marcy, it's a complicated issue, to my mind capitalism seems to be doing a good job of providing us with up to date treatments. But there's no reason why it can't exist with a primarily state owned treatment provider. That's your red herring, go and smoke it.
Complain about this comment
Post Script: By the way Marcy, are you suggesting the Canadian government is providing unsafe or illegal drugs for prescription issue? I mean, how else could it be cheaper for US citizens to go cross-border for this stuff?
Or are you just bitter that their system seems to be working, so much so it's attracting US custom?
Complain about this comment
It seems clear that these GOP extremists don't give a damn about their 'fellow Americans'. They would rather let millions of Americans live in perpetual fear for the rest of their lives than pay a cent more tax. What would Jesus do? Would he say only the rich and healthy can have access to a doctor? When these pseudo-Christians see the sick and needy they would rather walk on by than help them.
I hope Obama and the moral majority do not give in to the fascist bully-boy tactics of this uneducated and immoral minority.
We live in hope!
Complain about this comment
I have been paying close attention to the politics of the health care reform debate during the August recess. Three developments have captured the nation's attention. First, the townhalls being held throughout the nation in the Congressional districts and hometowns have become ever more rowdy and controversial. This has been reflected on the cable TV channels where the cameras have focused on the organized attempts to disrupt the speakers and thoughtful questioners seeking genuine information about the various legislation in Congress. Rupert Murdoch's Fox News channel has played the leading media role opposing President Obama's plans for health care reform. The Fox News anchors of popular shows like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly have openly vowed to defeat health care reform as a prelude to destroying the Obama presidency and limiting the popular young African-American president to a single term. It does not take much imagination to suspect a racist thrust behind their hatred of Obama. Second, Congressional Republican opposition to health care reform has hardened and Obama's determination to obtain a bipartisan passage of his legislation is going nowhere. Senator John McCain, the Republican candidate for the 2008 presidential election delivered a stinging rebuke today against health care reform at his townhall meeting. Although there are few moderates left in the Congressional Republican delegation, two senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine standout as possible votes for health care reform. Arlen Spector will be voting for health care reform but then he is no longer a Republican, having converted to the Democratic party recently after thirty years as the Republican senator from Pennsylvania. Third, Democrats are anxiously worried about Obama's commitment to a strong legislative package. A week into the August recess, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius said in press conference that she believed the "public option" was not an essential element of the legislation. Even before this, Senate Finance committee chair Max Baucus had come out against the "public option." And Baucus was backed by another Democrat on the committee, Kent Conrad. Conrad said he preferred to see an alternative to the "public option", health care cooperatives, take up the case for those consumers unable to afford private insurance. Conrad did not go into any detail about his cooperatives plan, but it was immediately attacked as unworkable by Howard Dean, a physician and former governor of Vermont. Examples of cooperatives already exist but they are generally local and small scale and according to Dean, cooperatives are unlikely to succeed unless they exceed at least 500,000 members. Obama tried to reassure his supporters in Congress that he still supported the "public option" before he left on a week of vacation but the doubts are growing and unless he comes back to Washington with a head of steam and determination to win, he may find his momentum evaporating and his great dream to finally realize the Democrat's long sought national health care legislation in tatters.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS