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

Indeed, you are correct. I feel conflicted on the issue. I don't want hard working folk who can't afford good or any health care to go untreated, but I also feel that other hard working folk shouldn't have to pay for them and agree with HayesStreet responsibility,freedom, and entreprenuership arguments.

Also, things in the U.S. might seem bad to some outsiders, but to argue its a government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens is absolutely freaking ridiculous.

 

We also have high taxes on tobacco and alcohol. Part of the rationale for this is that if you use these substances heavily you will likely be costing the healthcare system down the road, so these taxes offset that cost. Not coincidentally, making beer and wine at home has become very popular.

 

I don't think that is an accurate assessment of the so-called 'sin taxes' on alcohol and tobacco. Their origins do not have anything to do with the cost the individual places on the healthcare system down the road. That is only a more recent excuse given for tax hikes on tobacco, for example. At least in the US. Again I defer to you about Canada.

Besides, statistically speaking, if you get a so-called 'tobacco related disease' such as lung cancer, you are far more likely to die a quick death at an earlier age, in effect becoming less of a burden on the healthcare system than our non-smoking counterparts who suffer from long term ailments that cost far more to treat for a longer period of time, thereby serving to drain far more from the healthcare system.

 

The insurance companies do control for some unhealthy activities in some situations (the insurance I have through work does not know or care if I'm a smoker). However, there are many unhealthy activities that cannot be controlled for and many situations in which they are just not. I pay as much as a 60 year old employee would for health insurance despite the fact that, at 26, I likely will not incur any expensive health problems for awhile.

As for the parallel discussion of frogs: do you mean to say that slurs are ok if they're not racial in nature (assuming that 'frog' is not a racial categorization, which, incidentally, is BS)?

 

The point was a little strong, I'll admit, but I was swayed by the opportunity to use a cool word. Nonetheless, the rationale would be something like this. A government of mostly wealthy people is not the best government, even apart from the tendency for them to institute policies that keep them and their families in positions of financial as well as political power. New money is often very focused on making money, not the greater good of the nation. Its perspective is often very driven and quite narrow. Old money, the country club set, is so separated from mainstream society that they don't understand the issues and needs. Also, old jaded political hacks tend not to be the most principled types. "Politics is a dirty game." "You have to do what it takes." How many others could we add to the list? Neither group, as a whole, is well qualified to lead the nation, IMO. A diverse group of people without significant vested interests, who aren't jaded and corrupted, a group which included others with interests and professions other than making money, would be best, IMO.

There is nothing wrong with making or having money. But those who value money so highly that it is the driving for in their lives, or who by having it have grown up in a world very separate from the main stream, are not the best people to be making decision about what is best for the nation as a whole, especially if the governing body is disproportional comprised of these people.

And one could argue that they are amongst the least qualified because they are the most likely to operate out of self-interest, or to not have enough knowledge of the country as a whole to be able to make good decisions for the country as a whole.

 

Don't know. French is not a race, its a nationality. You accused me of using a racial slur. I did not use a racial slur. Slurs based on nationalities could be wrong as well I guess. I just never got over the whole 'blow up our fleet instead of joining the allies' thing (if you want to know how to lose a war, talk to the French). However, in my time in France (recently) I found the French to be most unlike the stereotypes I had grown up with, and overall a very pleasant people.

 

It was a cool word. No argument about that.

As yes, the poor are not jaded or corrupted . New money means you have an understanding of how the system works, and how to succeed within the system. That is useful insight when trying to run the country. Old money sees the long term picture. How is long term prosperity achieved. What are the values that enable long term prosperity? That is useful insight when trying to run the country. They are also better educated than the lower and/or middle classes. Also helpful. Also more likely to be philanthropic, since they are not concerned with meeting basic necessities, which also projects solid moral 'values.' Also helpful.

And those would be....who exactly? What group does not currently have their special interests lobbying for special treatment? Farmers? Uh, no. Teachers? Uh, no. Priests? Ah yes, we know we can trust the Church, right? LOL! If you look at the composition of local, state, and federal governments, you'll find a large cross-section of the population already, from all different backgrounds.

Why is that? If I was born poor, and now am a millionaire, who is better than me to guide policy? (I am not, as of yet, a millionaire BTW)...

That's silly. They are no more likely to operate out of self-interest than a poor person. And they are far more likely to have the knowledge about any number of subjects to make good decisions, whether it be economics or education.

 

Well, it is accurate in that this is a recent excuse given for the "sin taxes." The degree to which this is true is questionable, and your other points are good ones. And yes, they do apply to Canada too.

 

Look, this is a silly argument to make because:

a) Most US citizens never travel overseas, especially not for any length of time, and
b) US news and media generally are overwhelmingly US-oriented (or even Houston-oriented like channel 2, 'where local news comes first!')
c) The US education system (with the exception of Western Civ. and some other low-level university courses, maybe) is predominantly about American institutions and history, even to the exclusion of other useful information

HayesStreet, you're a tiny minority and an exception, much like my Dad was when he moved to New Zealand. A large proportion of US citizens *cannot find Florida on a map*. An English friend of mine had some very pleasant, fully mentally functional Dallas folk ask if the UK had electricity. Grizzled, your near neighbour, has to explain really *basic* things about Canada on this board almost constantly. The current *president of the United States* doesn't know where *Wales* is. What on earth makes you think that many or even most US citizens have made informed choices about their own country or have even bothered to compare it with others?

By the way, I don't think that anyone is calling Europe a utopia. I do, however, think that the US has just as many if not more huge social problems than many European countries. If you look at Mercer's 2002 Quality of Life Survey, which ranks cities worldwide on various criteria, including political stability, safety, cleanliness, public transport, educational/health services, *and* the all-important cost of living, the US is kind of screwed. The top ten cities are Zurich, Vienna, Vancouver, Sydney, Geneva, Frankfurt, Auckland, Copenhagen, Helsinki, and Bern. You'll note that the only North American city is Canadian; Australasia (which includes NZ) has two entries; and the rest of these cities are... well gosh, they're European. San Francisco and Honolulu manage to straggle in at numbers 20 and 22, respectively. (Houston doesn't have a hope, sorry folks.)

http://www.imercer.com/globalcontent/employeemobility/qualitynewsrelease.asp#Overall rankings

So here's my point: on the most basic quality-of-life issues for people, including political stability and healthcare systems, cities in the US rank lower than those in Europe *and* Canada *and* Australia *and* New Zealand. As they say, you can look it up.

 

I would just like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that beautiful Calgary Alberta was rated the cleanest city in the world!! *applause* *cheers* It was rated 31 on the overall quality of life scale, which must surely be a miscalculation, especially since it ranks us lower than Toronto, but that aside, Hooray for Calgary the Clean! (insert Simpson's joke here)

 

Interesting, but irrelevant. You are making a nonsensical argument: Americans think America is best because they don't know anything about the rest of the world. You, HS, might be an exception, but you are wrong because Americans don't know anything about the rest of the world.'

The fact that I am informed, and yet still believe that America is the best, makes your point about the general population irrelevant.

Well, those Dallas folks aren't that far off. They use some damn ancient three pronged electricity that isn't even the same as the rest of the continent! And as Jerry Jeff Walker says, I wish they'd turn the heat on! Is the location of Wales really important? These are funny facts but hardly conclusive. Americans can, for instance, tell that people from all over the world go to great lengths to get to, and into the US. They can hear them talk about how much better it is than their part of the world, whether it be Africa, South America, Asia, the South Pacific or Europe. Do I need to know the comparative statistics or even where their particular country is to see that? No, I don't. So again I think you sell people short. However, again I say these points are irrelevant, since I am far from uninformed. I do know where Florida is and where Wales is (eating fresh Welsh goat cheese as we speak), and I say America rocks. If you'd like to disagree with my specific viewpoints, that's cool, but generalizations about the ignorance of the American public get you nada, zippo.

Uh, yeah. Do you know how expensive it is in Zurich, Vienna, Geneva, and Bern? Talking about cost of living is a joke with most of the places you mentioned. Using Zurich and Auckland shows exactly how skewed this 'mercer' study is. How much more politically stable is Bern than Houston? Not at all. Why does Europe have better public transport? Less geographic space to cover? Gas is 4 bucks a gallon?(liter, sorry)...Health services? Well, yeah. That's what we've been talking about. When Europe has public health coverage, and that is a criteria valued by Mercer (but not by Americans), that might explain the absence of US cities on the top of the list.

So here's my point: different people have different quality-of-life criteria. Americans value individual choice. We like to have our own cars, so public transport is not a quality-of-life issue for us (yet). Political stablility is not a problem here. Our government is one of the most, if not the most, stable political institution on the planet. Healthcare is an individual responsibility, so a survey that values that is not in line with our belief system. I would say your Mercer rankings are fine if you are a Euro looking for some place to live. Personally, I'll take the Big Apple over Frankfurt, the Rockies over the Alps, Hawaii over Auckland, And San Fran over Helsinki, Copenhagen et al.... I've heard great things about Australia, so I'll just let that one be...

 

You're using 'we' to mean 'all Americans', right? In that case, my point about the generally uninformed US public still stands. Additionally, I don't think my points are invalidated because you wilfully choose the USA over Europe despite objective proof that European cities have a better quality of life than American cities.

"The analysis was based on an evaluation of 39 quality of life criteria for each city including political, social, economic, and environmental factors; personal safety and health; education; transport; and other public services. The survey was conducted to assist multinational companies in assessing international hardship allowances for their expatriate workers."

It's not that Mercer is 'biased' to 'non-American' priorities, in other words, since multi-national companies are overwhelmingly owned/run by Americans, aren't they?

Basically, you like the USA better because you're from the USA. Nothing wrong with that. I like New Zealand better than Australia despite our similarities, because I'm from New Zealand (and because Australia has the top ten poisonous animals in the world). But don't try to pass off your bias as some kind of informed truth about the USA's inherent superiority. Because I just proved that that's bollocks.

(By the way, Auckland has the highest quality of life for the lowest cost, worldwide. )

 

Just noticed that the Mercer survey also includes a section on the availability of 'consumer goods'. Now *there's* a good American priority for you!

 

MadMax, just wondering, have you ever been to Europe? Walked around in Paris or Rome on a warm summer evening? Strolled down the Ramblas in Barcelona...etc...? In Houston, such things don't even exist. I am not putting Houston down, I miss it, I am just pointing out that I still don't get the point of putting living in a whole continent down because of the existence of some radicals or extremists.

 

If they were in power long enough, scratching each other's backs, then I'm sure they could get jaded and corrupted too.

Well, I certainly don't want to suggest that new money people are all bad, but unbalanced by other perspectives, I don't think they make great politicians. They aren't the statesmen type. They often learn how to get ahead of the other guy, how to get a bigger slice of the pie, not how to make the pie bigger so that everyone can have more pie (I speaking in pretty broad generalisations here. This by no means applies to all new money). There is a tendency to be very competitive and to think of your successes individualistically and as the result of hard work rather than good fortune. And I agree that this is the character of American politics.

For new money, money is very important. Almost always it's about money and money equating with success. Many other people realise that there is much more to life than money, and are not driven to make as much of it. They see other things in their lives and in society as being more important, but these people seldom get to be rich enough to get involved in politics in the US. In general, new money people tend to be very capable people, but I think their focus tends to be narrower, rather than a broad vision for society that would be more desirable for politician. (Again, these are just broad generalisations about new money.)

Old money doesn't understand the long term picture as well, IMHO. They didn't make the money to begin with, their family did, and keeping is typically about maintaining the status quo, not future thinking. Then there is the "shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations" phenomenon. If you're born with a silver spoon in your mouth, you just don't have the same motivations. Education is more than just formal education, I would say. Political education comes from rubbing shoulders with the people, having the pulse of the nation, so to speak. Old money seldom mingles with the people. They are comfortable, not on the edge of cutting trends. Their capital is their competitive advantage, not their ideas or insights. (Again speaking very generally here.) Philanthropy is good though. Wealthy people can do that well.

Lobbyists are not elected politicians. Their responsibilities are much different, and in that role they exacerbate the overall problem, IMO. They are single issue people. "Give us what we want on this topic! Wah, wah wah." They don't have the responsibility of weighting the competing points of view and competing issues. And in the end they don't make the decisions, the politicians do. The interests the lobbyists represent would best be represented by elected representatives who take the responsibility of formulating a vision for all of society.

You would have some important perspectives to add, but alone your perspective would be too money oriented IMO. How are you going to speak for the people who don't value money as much as you? They many have made choices regarding family, or charity. They may have pursued careers as artists and musicians, or they may have had their dreams thwarted by sickness or injury or perhaps sickness in the family. Wealthy people tend not to understand these things as well, because they tend not to have experienced them to the same degree. "Hey I made it, so anybody can make it." The "it" here being money of course. Other people have different experiences and perspectives, but they tend not to be represented as much because they don't tend to have the money to get elected.

I disagree. I think the best person to lead would be one who wasn't concerned with personal power and wealth. Ideally that person would have a passion for their country and its people, and have a forward looking vision for the nation that would make it and the lives of its people better. Ideally the person would have a broad spectrum of people with a board spectrum of backgrounds represented in his government and be able to draw on that diversity and experience to craft a vision that represented as much of that spectrum as possible. The new money and old money types don't tend to fit this mould. OTOH, not many other people do either. I think these people tend to be middle class intellectual types with strong social consciences and good business sensibilities, but I don't know if there are enough of them to really call it a tendency.

One more time. All the new money and old money generalisations are very broad, lose generalisations made for the sake of discussion.

PPS - Canada rawks! And Copenhagen rocks too! Ever been to Christiania SJC?

 

This is simply not so. Only in countries w/o a developed health care system is it "cheaper" for a person to smoke. The costs of treating lung cancer and such far outweigh any economic benefit of early deaths. That is what the PM study in Eastern Europe recently showed--smoking could benefit the overall economy by killing off older persons early--but only when they wouldn't be treated by such conditions. Now if you put in place a system were smokers are prohibited from receiving lung cancer treatments, those that eat fatty foods or do not exercise enough are not allowed angioplasties, statin drugs, and former drinkers are struck from liver transplant lists--then you are correct you will have a more efficient overall economy because of the "sins".

(The rest is not directed to HayesStreet specifically but is a general ramble).
The US has by far the highest rates of violence, homicide, native homelessness, and infant mortality of comparable 1st world democracies. We also have the least amount of vacation (with the possible exception of Japan) or parental leave for our workforce plus one of the least effective and most underfunded public education system. I for one (and many others) would prefer we moved somewhere between where American is now in the capitalist/socialist spectrum and where most of capitalist leaning W Europe countries (Germany, Switzerland, GB) are now. If it took another 10% of my income to have a better safety net, public education, and public comprehensive medical system (as another said the public money is being spent relative to other countries we just aren’t getting the public result) in place so be it. Canada (don't know much about NZ) is a pretty good model about a lot of things. And unless you are for entirely getting rid of medicare and social security--it is grossly misleading to say you don't favor some kind of blend. It is also as insulting to equate communistic aspects of government to socialist aspects as it is to equate capitalistic aspects to anarchist aspects. It is a favorite scare tactic of the right wing in the US to say I don't favor something (e.g., national health care system) because it is "commi-socialist" but then 99% of these same either ignorant or hypocritical folks run away from taking on by far our biggest socialist aspects of our government--social security and medicare. If your a true pure capitalist and total anti-socialist just be true to it--and start with the politically popular biggies.

 

Yep .

 

Sorry DS, but you're incorrect. First, it is undisputed that once you are diagnosed with one of the heavies, like lung cancer, that you live on average of less than a year. Second, those diagnoses are more likely to come at a much earlier age than the not. Third, in direct comparison if you are diagnosed with the more likely life terminating illnesses (such as Parkinsons, Alzheimers, heart disease, kidney disease etc) you are likely to survive for years, albeit with incredibly expensive treatment. The economics of the situtation add up to one conclusion, smoking kills, but it saves us cash.

As for the anarchy/cap v communist/socialist stuff: I favor high taxes for those more well off, and low or no taxes for the poor. I favor help from the government for the poor, as in the programs I listed earlier like WIC and Food stamps and job training and education (student loans guarantees, for instance). I don't favor a socialist version of healthcare, ala Europe, where everyone is put under one banner and forced to bear the cost of coverage for everyone else. The high taxes and poor service typified by those systems is not a result I'd like to transfer to the US.

Grizzled,

We just have to agree to disagree. You are making baseless determinations of who is qualified to run a government on the assumption that someone who seeks economic security is somehow inherently uninterested in the condition of their countrymen. I would continue to argue but you're pulling that out of the air, so its pointless.

Dimsie,

I've addressed the Mercer criteria. It is neither consistent with American values in general, nor is it universal. As I pointed out, for instance, the fact that the US does not have national health care insurance would rule its cities off of the list, correct? You trumpet 'cost of living' and yet some extremely expensive cities are on the list, no? As such the list is hardly a definitive measure, and I do not accept it as an arbiter of our discussion.

As for 'we' Americans, I can assure you I am not the only informed American, as so when I use the pronoun 'we' I am merely grouping like-minded Americans. I would not say I speak for 'all' Americans. But in defense of your stereotypical ignorant American, it is unrefuted that they can notice the immigration, and the rationale that surrounds it as such, into America, and form a valid opinion from that (valid although it contradicts your own, who I might ironically point out is a stranger in a strange land apparently).

I like America because I'm from America, yes. True. I like America because my father came from a communist system (USSR) and retired not a wealthy man, but a free one. I like America because he was able to become an entrepreneur without the strangulation of high tax and high red tape from a government bureaucracy that felt it knew better where to spend his money than he did. I like America because I myself was poor, but now am not. I like America because I believe in the American dream as my father lived it and as I am living it now. I rather like having the freedoms we get, and am willing to accept the costs of those freedoms, as they are, rather than abdicate my own responsibilities to some faceless entity. We've got our problems, without a doubt, but there is no place in the world that is a better mixture of security and opportunity.

 

We can agree to disagree. I wasn't expecting to change your mind. But, while we are admittedly farther out into the land of conjecture than we have been in previous discussions, I would offer the political and social nature of the countries we have discussed as evidence. I would further offer our common knowledge of what drives people. What are the demographics of the people who make the policies in these countries and what are those policies? I think an inference can be drawn. The US is ruled by a relatively narrow class of quite wealthy people. Is it really such a surprise that its policies tend to make it a great place to be rich and a lousy place to be poor? I would also make a clear distinction between people who are looking for economic security for their families, and those who want to be rich and powerful. Those are different sets of drivers, IMO. There is no exact science to politics. In the end it's just opinion and what rings true and feels right in your gut. I'm simply expressing my opinion. And we can agree to disagree.

As a footnote, I'd like to say that I respect your dream. It is a dream and a reality for many Canadians too, and it is an important and valued voice in the political process. In the end I agree that we are arguing about a matter if degree. I prefer a society that is more supportive of its less fortunate and offers, IMO, more opportunity for social movement. There are costs and inefficiencies to that system, but in the end it produces a society and a country that I'm more comfortable with, and one that I proudly call home.