Have I mentioned lately how glad I am that I'm not a Euro??

That is exactly it. When I as there, France had 9 parties in their parliament - covering the entire spectrum. The positive of a multi party system is that more people can have a true voice. The negative is that it does not take much support to start having a greater influence. I also agree with your Buchanan comparison. Just because he is not called a fascist and the Europeans do not hide from the word (simply an exercise in semantics) does not mean they are not kindred politicians.

 

Actually, its funny that you put it that way, glynch. A little personal story right back at you. As a poor uninsured 19 year old living near McGregor Park, I got involved in an 'incident' with a rather large linebacker from UH. I ended up with a large deep gash on my head and drenched in my own blood (which was still pumping out of my head), I went to (ironically) Ben Taub hospital. Why? Because I was uninsured. Did they treat me? Yes. Did they stitch me up and give me bandages (and crutches because my ankle was also broken)? Yes. Did they ask me to cough up cash? No. They asked me to sign a form saying that I would eventually pay for it, which I did.

The Buchanan comparisons are outrageous. It has nothing to do with semantics (as Buchanan is OFTEN called a fascist) and more to do with the fact that he would NEVER get a comparable vote to what the Frog got. Unless there is some Presidential election I missed where Buchanan or David Duke got 17% of the popular vote.

 

Not that I'm all about defending moronic twits like Dick Armey, but doesn't ethnic cleansing have to do with killing people of various ethnicities, not moving them to another land? Or am I mistaken?


If the definition of ethnic cleansing were to move people to another land, they could call it "ethnic relocation"...and have Mayflower do it.

 

Well, I'm still happy to be a Euro.

From http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=ethnic cleansing

HayesStreet, please keep you ethnic slurs to a minimum. We do have a few Frogs on the bbs.

Le Pen's success is similar to the success of fascists groups in the 30s. The Left is fractured between many groups while the Right is more concentrated around a single leader. So, when you have many people running, most of them on the Left, you'll have one Right-winger like Le Pen getting all the vote of the Right while the vote of the Left is split between many candidates. When it comes to elections, the French say, Vote with you heart in the first round and with your mind in the second. These realities were complicated by the fact that no polls can be published around election time. So, voters on the Left couldn't see the imminent danger of Jospin losing to Le Pen. Now, they know the danger. Le Pen doesn't stand much chance against Chirac.

One more story on health care systems. A friend of the family, a French woman in the US, started experiencing serious problems with blackouts, blurred vision and other things. As a nurse, she recognized it as an aneurism. She went to the doctor who confirmed her self-diagnosis. However, the insurance company wouldn't recognize it as such and wanted another opinion. Their doctor said it was not an aneurism and, I believe, said the symptoms were related to her weight. She objected, but they continued to run interference. So, she bought a ticket to France and attended a French hospital which diagnosed it as an aneurism and treated it. Had she remained at the mercy of the insurance company, she'd have died. That's one of the great things about being a 'Euro': if the Americans won't take care of me like they need to, I can always fly to France.

 

This thing HayesStreet has about the evils of socialised medicine is peeving me. I just want to make clear that even though universal health care exists in many countries, *so does private insurance* for those rich enough to take advantage of it. You aren't *forced* to do anything, and most waiting lists are for *elective* surgery. It's actually the best of both worlds. (By the way, my mother has private health insurance in NZ and the premiums are almost exponentially *cheaper* than they are here. However, my grandfather doesn't have private insurance and his bowel cancer operation/hospitalisation was free. Free free free. Zippo. Nada. He didn't have to wait a day, either.)

By the way, I think the New Right in this country is fairly 'extremist'. But I'm just a foreign pinko commie, so what do I know.

 

Thanks for the dictionary definition, Juan. I guess what happened in the Balkans made me think ethnic cleansing=ethnic killing. I stand corrected.

 

It should also be pointed out that 800,000 people marched in the streets of Paris against Le Pen, and another 1,000,000 marched in other places in France. So you could argue that France has a healthy democracy. Could you get these numbers out in the US on a similar issue? Politically, the US doesn't stack up well against almost any other first world country. You get only half of your electorate out to vote! Perhaps this is because you only have two parties and a system that requites you to be wealthy succeed, so the pool of people who even can run for either party is limited to a very small group which tends to have very similar values. When you have a narrow segment of the population that dominates the political power in a country they naturally, perhaps even subconsciously, construct policies that are in their interest and sustain their position of power. I think this is reflected in the kind of society you have, where large segments of the population have no real access to power or even much social mobility because they are denied the basic tools to achieve this: basic healthcare, education, safe living environment etc. As a result you have huge segments of the population that are effectively disenfranchised, some of whom form their own subcultures of gangs or paramilitary groups etc. in an attempt to achieve some sort of power. I like the US in general, don't get me wrong. You are our neighbour and brother in many ways on this continent and you do many good things, but your political system is probably your weakest characteristic. One could make a strong argument that you are more of an oligarchy or even a kakistocracy rather than democracy. At best, the US is probably the worst democracy in the first world (there may be some Italians who would dispute this though. )

To tie this in with other topics, I think it is the breakdown in your democracy, where your ruling class is not representative of your people, that has caused you problems in healthcare system and your social problems. If you can afford your own healthcare and can live in a gated community with extra security guards, then hey, there's no problem, right? While the rest of the first world is in the process of reforming its healthcare systems, (ours has been in place for 35 years after all) you still don't have public healthcare! This is mind boggling to me. Our systems need to be reformed, yes, but no one is suggesting we should go back to the American system. Yours is truly almost universally considered to be the worst (least efficient, most people left uncovered, higher infant mortality, shorter life expectancy, etc.) in the first world. And the US may not have organised groups like Le Pen's, but you have many more gangs, paramilitary groups, racist groups, and disenfranchised people in general. Your crime rate, especially violent crime, is much higher than Canada's and Europe's in general.

The US is not a bad place. In fact, you have some very good points, but you have some weaknesses too, starting, IMHO, with your political system. You should look and lean a little more from things that are happening elsewhere in the world, I think. It has always puzzled me that the US has not done this more. There is a peculiar tendency toward insularity about your nation that I don't really understand.

 

Nothing is *Free,* Dimsie. Those with private insurance are forced to pay twice. Once for their private insurance they use, and once for someone else's *Free* insurance they don't. And you are flat out wrong about surgeries that take a long time as being 'elective.' And yes, you do seem to be a foreign pinko commie, but that's ok.

As for JV's example. I'd agree its most unfortunate, but misdiagnosis happens everywhere, not just the US, and it happens for financial reasons everywhere, in every system, not just in the US. And I really don't think that 'Frog' is a racial slur...

 

Another joke. You've completely misread the situation in France. One of the main reasons Le Pen had such a huge showing was because of the voter apathy in France! It was only once he came in an astonishing second that these demonstrations happened. Just as in the US when Buchanan performed well in NH and then counter forces mobilized to insure he would go no farther.

As for the two party system, I'll take its insular nature over the chaotic coalition-style format in European countries. I can't sneeze without a damn Euro government falling, and the nature of power sharing within a coalition government allows extremist parties to hold power vastly disproportionate to their constituencies numbers. The net effect of that are policies that reflect neither sound reasoning, nor the will of the majority of the people.

There are disenfranchised in every country. Saying the Crips and Bloods and skinheads are statistically significant in relation to our overall population ('huge segments') vastly overexaggerrates your point. In addition, while our two party system may bring both parties toward a homogenized middle, that is viewed as a good thing, not a bad one. Thousands of particular political views have to be filtered or you have a system that pulls itself apart going in too many directions. Factions were a major concern of the Founding Fathers, and those political views that make sense to the majority of Americans DO make their way from the fringes to the middle (see abortion, the environment, civil rights). Because our system favors incrementalism rather than instantaneous upheaval makes it no less democratic.

I think our vision of what a democracy is might just be different. In your vision (and many of our Euro friends), the government is supposed to take care of everyone. I believe you are supposed to take care of yourself, and if the government can give you a nudge to help out, sweet. But total reliance on the 'system' in place of individual responsibility is NOT a trait of the American political system, nor should it be. Its one of the main reasons the US has been more successful than its counterparts in developing an entreprenurial spirit as compared to those counterparts.

Oh, right. O Canada has no social problems. When was the last time New York tried to break away from the Union? Can you say the same O Quebec? And Americans are accused of being arrogant! I'm sure there are not a lot of gangs in the wilderness of Saskatuwon, but lets not pretend like you've got things all sewn up. I find it ironic that the country 'universally considered to be the worst in the first world' continues to attract so many new immigrants every year. They must all be stupid! Or maybe they know that the system is better than what they came from, and that within their own generation they can go from digging ditches for a gated community, to living within the gated community! Hard to do that in Canada or Europa.

Yes, and as a rule those fringe groups don't run the government, like they can in Canada and Euro, extorting policymaking concessions for their swing vote. And you are completely out of it if you think Europeans do not have massive problems with racism etc. Read a paper for crying out loud.

It should be easy to understand. We DO look at the rest of the world. To quote from a really really bad movie I saw on DVD the other day... 'You have weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.' We look at the rest of the world and thank God (God, Allah, money, whatever) we live where we do, and the last thing we want to do is make the US like the rest of the world.

 

In countries with free/socialistic health care systems, how do they decide what procedures fall under those programs and what don't. For example, I wouldn't expect something like plastic surgery or liposuction would be free, would it? What about people with lung cancer or other problems that are directly related to them having smoked all their lifes?

I'd be all for universal health care, but I don't want to have to help cover someone else's large medical bills because they were too lazy to properly care for their body.

Is that just really mean of me?

 

Ah yes, HayesStreet, but our taxes are lower than yours. We can actually *afford* to pay twice.

Look, no health system is perfect. But I made damn sure when I moved here that I had travel insurance which included repatriation/hospitalisation, and it cost me a pretty penny too. In fact, most overseas travel insurance costs much more if you're going to the US precisely *because* your health system is so much more f*cked up than most other western countries' systems. That should tell you something.

JayZ, if it's a universal system it's a universal system (with the exception of plastic surgery, which is cosmetic, not health-related). You can't cut people out of the system just because they make different lifestyle choices than you do. Otherwise it's not universal or fair, it's just moralistic.

By the way, HayesStreet, are you *really* telling Grizzled that the US *isn't* insular? *Really*? That's the most ludicrous f*cking thing I've ever heard on this board, and I was here for the Princess period...

 

However, in EUROPE, of which NZ is not a part last time I checked, taxes are NOT lower. Believe me. I'm paying Euro tax right now, and it just ain't so. And that is across the board, not just income tax.

As for my conversation with Grizzled, you have to be more specific on what you mean, or what in my statements you have a problem with. I said we like what we see of the US more than we do of other countries. We don't want to be like other countries because we think its better to live in the US than in those other places. Some of you have this vision of Americans as dodo birds, walking around in a daze with no idea what the rest of the world is like. That also just ain't so. American individualism has its costs, but the benefits far outweigh those costs. More personal responsibility also means more personal choice, more FREEDOM. Things you deem necessary for the government to mandate, we feel are best left for individuals to decide for themselves.

 

Hayesstreet, I'm surprised that you accepted free treatment at Ben Taub, which is simiar to socialized medicine for the indigent if they live in Harris County. Almost no such services in outlying counties.

I've heard of cases of people being on waiting lines of two to three years for types of "elective" surgery at Ben Taub. In some case the "elective" surgery such as back surgery would put them back to work.

BTW Hayes. I hope you paid Ben Taub back as you had to accept such care against your moral principles. Perhaps, if you contacted them they could still bill you.

 

Well, I was bleeding like a stuck pig, and poor, so I didn't have much choice. My point is that in an emergency there is an option for people without insurance. They aren't just told to go die in a corner somewhere while their bleeding to death because we don't have 'universal health care coverage.' That is true whether you are talking about a rural hospital or an urban one.

Surgeries such as 'back surgery' or some even more critical are the very kind I am telling you Euros have to wait a long long time to get, even WITH 'universal health care coverage.' The image you project of one smooth efficient system that nurtures every ailment is simply a myth.

And I have been to the hospital once as an adult (that time) and since paid hundreds of thousands in taxes, some of which goes to programs for the poor. And I'm not against help for the poor, just the extend to which you seem to be. I don't want to live in a US that is like Europe, where MOST of my money is allocated to someone else's idea of what is important. I'm not so foolish as to believe that cases cannot be made for ALL KINDS of causes. They certainly can. But I should be able to decide on a case by case basis which ones to contribute my money to, within reason. When I was poor I could think of all kinds of ways to spend rich people's money. When I stopped doing that and starting doing something to raise myself up, I could stop worrying about handouts, and worry instead about why I was paying so damn much in taxes. I like this much better. Everybody needs a little help sometime. But socialism ain't the answer. It removes your incentive to work, to achieve, to succeed.

 

Voter apathy is relative. In Canada we talk about voter apathy when the popular vote drops below 70%, but my point about voter turnout in the US was more of a general point about the health of your system. The number of marchers was a response to article stating that 10,000 has marched in support of Le Pen. The French are just more involved and engaged in the political process, on both sides.

Like the Greens in Germany? I'll agree with much of this point, in that the other extreme is as bad or worse. Italy I suppose is the classic example. But you can't deny that a system that only gets half its electorate out to vote doesn't have some serious problems. Some hybrid between the two, where all parties that receive a significant percentage of the vote can have an voice in parliament, but that protects against the paralysis of endless coalitions might be the best solution. Canada with its recent trend towards regional parties is no example on this point, btw. Perhaps 10-20% representation by popular vote and the rest by majority vote in a given riding (the current way)?

I don't know what the gang situation is like in the UK, but in Canada is nothing like it is in the states. Likewise with the paramilitary groups etc. I think this is clearly reflected in the crime statistics. I don't think this point is overstated.

The main problem is more that the parties both tend to quite disproportionately represent the wealthy ruling class. I don't see a trend away from that, but you can correct me if I'm wrong. Chaotic change is not good, agreed, but I would say the US has been slower to change than other countries. The issues you mention are ones the US has not been particularly progressive on, IMO.

I think we are talking about a matter of degree, on this. I'm sure you don't really think that Britts or Canadians expect the government to take care of them, but we do expect the government to take more of a roll than the US government seems to. I'm sure that you would agree that there are basic principles of human justice that a government should ensure for its people. That's what laws and courts and police, and fair-trading policies etc. are about, right? We extent that principle to health care. It is the government's responsibility to ensure that all of its people have access to basic health care and other social supports. It even makes financial sense. If we allow people to become marginalised they end up as a drain on the economy. If you help them into the system, the are an asset. Sometimes our social policies don't work effectively at doing this, and in these cases the policies are wrong or faulty, but this is the principle behind them as well as the principle of compassion for those who genuinely can't help themselves. .

I didn't say that we have no problems, and the problems in Quebec are largely about language and culture, not the political and social systems. There aren't a lot of gang in Calgary or any other Canadian city either, comparatively. Calgary is a city of 1 million and we have about 15 murders per year. What's the rate in Houston? A little higher I suspect. As for you immigrant, many would not come from first world countries, and those that do are likely coming to privileged positions. As I have already stated, the US system is good for the wealthy and privileged. It' your own lower and lower middle class people who get screwed.

Umm… Just who do you think runs our government? They are not fringe elements. They tend to be middle class to upper middle class people, but we have many teachers, farmers, lawyers, an engineer or two, etc. I don't consider these to be fringe groups. Sure, there are racial problems everywhere. Europe has special problems because the culture is so old and the history is so strong. I'm talking about problems related to marginalised people who are excluded from the mainstream power structures.

I think "money" is the operative word there. I have no doubt that the system works well for you personally, in the sort term anyway, but I don't think it's good for the people of your nation in general.

You are entrepreneurs, but so are the Japanese and Germans, and even us humble Canadians (small plug for the home team). I'm not sure if your economic success is due more to you entrepreneurial tendencies, or to critical mass factors related to your size.

… must … do … work … now ... must …

 

For anyone who was wondering, as I was:

And, while I'm on definitions,

(from the American Heritage Dictionary. http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=frog)


But, I know what you mean. I don't find ****** particularly offensive either, so I don't see why an African American would.

 

JZ, you pay for other people's lung cancer in the States. Every unhealthy habit that fellow customers of the health insurance industry engage in increase the cost of coverage for everybody.

 

Nationality does not equate to race. Calling someone from France a Frog is not the same a calling someone who is dark skinned a ******.

Grizzled,

I think we agree on some things and disagree mainly on scope. I agree that the government should help the marginalized. I believe in programs like WIC, Food Stamps, Unemployment (with limits), training programs, education spending, etc. However, our disagreement is (based on the beginning of the thread) whether or not a European style solution is desirable. I do not believe it is. Nothing you have said would be a reason to change that opinion. The Euro solution is by and large failing to provide the desired services while causing a massive drain on those economies. By and large overwhelming the positive effect you allude to when you talk about raising the bottom so they can contribute. This is largely recognized WITHIN Europe, and reflected in their opinions. The socialist experiment has not worked. I can't speak so much about Canada as you are far more knowledgable about it than I, but I can speak to what I see and hear in Europe, and its not the utopia you guys are projecting.

Should the government help its people (your line about laws, and fair trade etc)? Of course. Its the degree we diverge on, and its the degree we expect that separates America from other countries.

 

You get lower premiums if you don't smoke. And you don't have to pay for insurance at all if you don't want to. It is your CHOICE. One of the great things about this country.