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

Cool.

 

I quote their website here:

"Mercer’s quality of life reports aim to overcome the weaknesses of traditional "hardship comparisons", which are often viewed from a national perspective and rarely take proper account of the positive features of the cities being compared. Assessment factors reflect the criteria which international executives feel are the standards by which cities should be compared. In order to be considered as a valid criterion, each factor must be neutral and objective (not biased from a national perspective), quantifiable and comparable, and relevant to all expatriates regardless of seniority or job type. Mercer's approach therefore compares factors which are basic concerns for all, and avoids national and cultural differences, avoiding the weaknesses of those comparisons biased towards an American, European, or Asian standard."

Incidentally, having national health insurance is irrelevant to the survey - having *access to decent medical services* is.

Look, you can pussyfoot around this issue all you like, and you can reject my data all you like. (Apparently the only data you'll actually accept as an arbiter is your own opinion, even when it's quantifiably wrong!) Again, all I'm saying is that passing off your opinion as an informed truth is disingenuous.

(BTW, this 'stranger in a strange land' is leaving here permanently in... 25 days. )

 

This isn't the case, and Philip Morris's own study showed it. Smoking saves money only if the treaments for its associated medical problems are not covered. While much of your logic above is on target, there are aspects you miss. For one, the chronic heart diseases you mention as expensive, not lung cancer, is the leading associated cause of death for smokers (Parkinson, Alzheimers and Kidney disease are not unimportant--but compared to CHD and cancers they are not on the map in terms of national health care costs or lives losts). If you don't smoke you have a much better chance of never needing any hospitalization or expensive treaments. Second, lung cancer treament overall is very expensive despite the poor prognosis. Further, like you said lung cancer can strike relatively young (so can heart attacks), so you can miss out on some of the most productive years of experienced workers and managers and such. In sum, when all such factors are considered, the PM data showed smoking raised the overall costs of a comprehensive health care system (and I am sure you agree this isn't even the most important societal aspect to it).

I have no problem with this view at all. It is well thought out and consistent. My view is I would prefer the US move between where it is and where WEur largly is, different than you obviously. I would rather debate with someone like you than someone with a pure ideological view who doesn't see the systems in place for what they are and plays the socy-commie card while advocating social security and medicare.

 

Not to jump into any argument, but the quote itself shows its own biases. It takes into account only executives (granted, its regardless of seniority or job type) who are expatriates???

Where are the opinions of the poor, lower class, people??

 

I certainly don't think Europe is a utopia but I think we are a bit extreme in many aspects that has larger negative societal consequences. Further, I think those Americans that think Europe is a utopia is far outnumbered by those who think America is perfect and their isn't a thing valuable or important to learn from anyone else. In short I think our national arrogance is a much more pervasive problem and our progression as a country far more hindered by it than any national humilty or questioning of our leaders/directions is current the case or likely ever will be.

 

In regards to France, that could not be more wrong. The French are obsessed with individual liberty - that is all they talk about. Every French person feels that they have a right to defend their liberties and will do so at any moment - even if it shuts down the Metro system, for example.

The whole reason you do not make eye contact on the street or metro is because that is considered a violation of someone's personal privacy.

Chirac is not a "communitarian," either.

However, in regards to social policy, they do not see "helping their fellow man" as mutually exclusive with individual liberty. An old French friend who loved Bush I, hated socialists in his country, would be a Republican in the US, explained to me that having buses going around picking up homeless people in the winter to give them shelter - if they wanted - was just something that had to be done.

So I guess this makes me a "Europe is a Utopia" idiot. Oh well. I don't believe that, but that doesn't matter. It is much better to stay behind false assumptions and generalizations. Blah blah blah.

To a lesser degree I can speak of the UK...but why bother.

Germany...gotta love the Germans. Perhaps SJC can explain the reasoning behind the "unique" style of German academics. Damn methodical, nit-picking, categorize everything, obtuse language bastards.

 

JayZ750, you're right - it *is* biased towards the needs of executives rather than poor people (although I think it could be argued that all of these criteria are useful for judging cities generally). But that should make the data *more* relevant to HayesStreet's position, rather than less, since I believe that he himself is an expatriate executive... he's just rejecting it because it makes the US look worse than Europe.

 

Well, if you research how those statistics are compiled, you'll find that is not as reliable as it seems. A simple example, if I have a heart attack, and go to the hospital, they'll ask if I smoke. If I do, then it is recorded as a smoking induced illness. When they do an autopsy, when they record a smoking habit they record it as a smoking related death. I think you'd agree that's hardly scientific, and grossly misleading. I don't know which PM study you are talking about, so you can cite it if you wish to continue. As far as what research has shown, an large economic study was commissioned by 'big tobacco' to focus soley on the economic issues of smoking, and the conclusions were opposite to what you represent. If its really important I guess I can did through some boxes in my closet and find the cites if you like.

That is irrelevant to the COST on the healthcare system. Productivity loss or gain is another issue. I also find it curious that you quote a PM study on this, since they intuitively would not issue these types of findings while simultaneously issuing the opposite conclusions. I suspect you may have read someone quoting (or misquoting) it secondhand (no smoking pun intended! )

Well, there is certainly nothing wrong with saying that we could improve some things in the US. We're are not perfect, and I wouldn't ever contend that. IMO, however, there is not a better place to be in the world, evaluating it based soley on my own criteria of course.

 

Look, dimsie....i'm not passing anything off. I've been upfront that this is my opinion. Mercer draws a baseline and removes national preferences. Why would I, not being a robot, cast off my own preferences? That would be silly. And you still are ignoring my points about how skewed the report is. They use the Aucklands to bring their baseline on 'cost of living' way down while listing Zurich and Geneva, which are mucho expensive, hiding the weaknesses of their selections by diluting the categories they fall short in. Again, do you think there is not adequate health care available for executives in New York City? Or Chicago, or San Fran or Houston? That is ridiculous.

Lucky for us merely moving out of the country won't prevent you from posting on the board.

 

I think its more likely that the French will use any excuse to take a day off !!!

 

First, we don't have a nanny-state mentality in Europe. Secondly, I think I know what you mean, though. Since I would consider myself a moderately conservative LIBERAL, in general I agree with you at least insofar as I prefer less state regulation to more state regulation in principle (with the exception of, e.g., weapon laws).

I agree with that part. I have seen leftist Americans have that illusion. Of course there are political troubles, just like there are in the US. But I think that just as it is wrong to see it as an utopia in that way, it is wrong to take two examples of the existence of radicals or extremists and from that, draw the conclusion "I am glad that I'm not a Euro".

No, there is no contrast whatsoever between the general tendency of European constitutions and the US constitution - which is not surprising since the founding fathers of the US were either Europeans or heavily influenced by European philosophers, lawyers, etc. I only agree that one doesn't need to look at European politics in a superior light, but there is definitely no contrast.

It relates insofar to your posts as you come up with some isolated negative examples of something that is going on in Europe and then title your thread "Have I mentioned lately how glad I am that I'm not a Euro??". Therefore I was trying to just mention something positive about Europe. Simple as that.

A lot of truth in that .

 

Don't get me started on the French. Oh well, I don't need to, you would surrender immediately anyway .

 

Hayes-Street: below are some studies on the economic analysis of smoking. Of course these are mass media versions without all the details and assumptions layed out as would be the case in a peer-reviewed publication. You are also correct even the most scientific of such studies always makes some assumptions--there is no way to get around this.

***Here is a review of a study conducted by the CDC on the costs of smoking in the US-
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/102/nation/Smoking_costs_calculated_at_157_7b_annually+.shtml

***Here is a review of some of the initial reports from the Philip Morris Czech Republic Study--
http://europe.cnn.com/2001/BUSINESS/07/16/czech.morris/

***Here is exerpts from a review with some follow up analyses of the Czech study's data.
BOB HERBERT NYTimes.com [07/23/01]
Philip Morris officials have been passing around an economic analysis that came up with the delightful finding that the early death of smokers is good for the Czech economy. ...Philip Morris commissioned the analysis, which was done by the consulting firm Arthur D. Little International. In compiling the many "positive" economic effects of smoking, the report unabashedly cited the "health-care cost savings due to early mortality." The report was very clear about this. By bumping off a portion of the population, Big Tobacco was saving the Czech government millions. As The Wall Street Journal wrote: "The premature demise of smokers saved the Czech government between 943 million koruna and 1.19 billion koruna ($23.8 million to $30.1 million) on health care, pensions and housing for the elderly in 1999, according to the report."

Philip Morris commissioned the study because it felt it had to respond to complaints from Czech officials about the huge costs of caring for people with tobacco-related diseases......Weighing the costs and benefits, the report concludes that in 1999 the government had a net gain of 5.82 billion koruna ($147.1 million) from smoking." .....There are two problems with the Philip Morris report. The first is the brazen and profoundly unethical disregard of the value of human life itself. The second is the fact that the economic benefits that are supposed to accrue from the early death of smokers are as ephemeral as smoke itself. "The basic problem," said Derek Yach, executive director of the Tobacco Free Initiative of the World Health Organization, "is that if you've got countries — and many in Eastern Europe fall into this category — where access to health care is still suboptimal, you'll be able to show that alleged financial benefits outweigh costs because costs are nowhere near where they should be in terms of treating adequately the full impact of tobacco-related diseases." The economic "benefits" from the early death of tobacco smokers vanish whenever there is adequate treatment available for the cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease and many other terrible afflictions associated with smoking. ......................"If you take the argument to the extreme," said Dr. Yach, "then you could say there's no economic benefit to investing in the health care of anyone over the age of 55, so let them die. It doesn't matter what the cause of death is."

 

DS,

I appreciate that you've taken the time to look these up so I will do the same. I will point out, however, that as I suspected your earlier position, which was that PM's studies concluded AGAINST my argument was false. As even your excerpts point out, their studies were consistent with my argument. The counterarguments are from anti-Tobacco sources. Of course, that does not mean they are incorrect, but your earlier posts alleged that even Big Tobacco agreed with your conclusions, which is false and would mislead any of our fellow readers into believing there is consensus on the point, which there is not. Also, I'll point out at this juncture that you've ignored my contention that the base statistics your sources rely on when counting smoking deaths and illnesses are inherently distorted. And finally, the main points of the counterarguments focus on the moral implications of claiming to save money off of early deaths, which is irrelevant to our discussion.

I will post again soon with the counter economic arguments after I dig them out of my closet.

 

There are many arguments against the 'social cost' theory of smoking. The following are a few excerpts for you to consider:

From Tollison & Wagner in their book The Economics of Smoking in 1992

...studies suggest that attributing health consequences to smoking does not imply that smokers impose costs on nonsmokers, even when healthcare is provided by government. (quoting Schelling) 'It is not at all evident that over their lifetimes smokers incur greater medical care costs than nonsmokers...Most of them in the absence of lung cancer would have lived a decade or two more and their average aggregate health-care costs as they lived into their seventies and eighties could easily have exceeded the figure associated with lung cancer...the health-care costs that are obviated by premature deaths attributable to smoking are of at least the order of magnitude of the health-care costs attributable to fatal smoking induced illnesses.'

Again from T & W

Factually, if these government-funded health programs were being overused by smokers, one could argue that smokers were creating additional costs for others. To the contrary, however, smokers as a group are very much underrepresented in the population groups served by these programs. More than 90 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are over the age of 65 - - an age group in which only 16% are smokers...given the contributions of smokers to government health-care financing, there is ample reason to suggest that smokers are subsidizing nonsmokers in the these programs, not the other way around.

They continue

While some studies report that one working adult in three smokes, only one retiree in six smokes. In this situation, many smokers pay taxes to support medicare during their working years, but are not around to collect benefits during their retirement years. Furthermore, with reportedly shorter life spans, smokers would make less use of extended stays in hospitals and convalescent homes in the later years of life, where the expenses are particularly heavy, and many of which are covered by Medicare.

One more from Tollison & Wagner-

We should perhaps restate here that we are speaking of assumed and not proven casual relationships when we speak of the 'medical costs of smoking.' A primary reason for this bias is that lung cancer is a relatively inexpensive form of cancer to treat, but the standard approach to estimating medical expenses assumes lung cancer uses the same medical resources as other forms of cancer. The attribution of 30 percent of cancer deaths to smoking does not warrant the attribution of 30 percent of the estimated medical costs of treating all cancers to smoking. The proper attribution rate would be considerably lower. Most lung cancer deaths occur relatively quickly after diagnosis, and do not involve elaborate, long-term methods of treatment.

Consider also the level of extra tax a smoker puts into the system that a nonsmoker does not. For example, in NY I was paying $5 a pack per day for cigarettes, of which roughly $3 was tax. That's a lot of tax money when multiplied by all the smokers that the system receives over and above what the government collects from an average nonsmoker. And that doesn't include the billions in settlement money being ponied up by Big Tobacco.

Finally, there are indications that smoking actually prevents more debilitating and expensive diseases such as Alzheimers and Parkinsons. Pharmacother writes (1994) that "They must know their reduced risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD): a meta-analysis, the data of which include 11 case-controlled studies of this disease has shown that...the smoking, referred in cigarette number smoked per month and in total years smoking, presents a significant inverse correlation with AD, hence playing a significant preventative role in its induction. ...some might prefer to take the smoking risk of cancer and of atheroma rather than that of Alzheimers disease, which affects, in the United States, 10% of those between 60 and 80, which is, in absolute numbers, far more than cancer and atheroma-related deaths related to smoking.

 

I read with interest the quality of life report that was posted earlier in this thread.

<i>
....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 <b>kind of screwed</b>. 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.....</i>

The individual cities of Switzerland may have a good quality of life, yet showed little concern for doing something about the Bosnian quality of life during the Civil War in Yugoslavia. The United States which is <i>kind of screwed</i> in domestic social areas had the social conscience to step up and do what was needed to change the situation in Bosnia. Since the people in Bern, Geneva, Zurich, Helsinki, Vienna, Frankfurt and Copenhagen had their<i> quality of life</i>, guess the Bosnians didn't really matter to them.

Two definitions for <b>Insular</b>
<i> Of or pertaining to the people of an island; narrow; circumscribed; illiberal; contracted; as, insular habits, opinions, or prejudices.

Circumscribed and detached in outlook and experience; narrow or provincial. </i>

I consider the Swiss as quite insular, yet several Swiss cities are cited as ideals that <i>Houston doesn't have a hope, sorry folks</i> of meeting.

If the Swiss are not insular, then why the delay in joing the EU?

<A HREF="http://www.eurunion.org/states/home.htm">List of EU Member Countries</A>
Austria, Belgium
Denmark, Finland
France, Germany
Greece, Ireland
Italy, Luxembourg
The Netherlands, Portugal
Spain, Sweden
United Kingdom


With several Swiss cities on the Mercer List:
Bern
Zurich
Geneva

I examined Switzerland as an entire country.

If the Swiss have such a great quality of life, why are the net migration inflows so poor compared to the United States?

<A HREF="http://worldfacts.globalesl.net/index.phtml?ctryID=sz&cat=3">Switzerland: People </A>
<i>
....Net migration rate:
1.38 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2000 est.).......</i>

<A HREF="http://worldfacts.globalesl.net/index.phtml?ctryID=us&cat=3">United States: People</A>

<i>.....Net migration rate:
3.5 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2000 est.).....</i>

Seems like people are <i>voting with their feet</i> in regards to quality of life and their future in a new country.

Maybe it is because Switzerland is considered a less than desirable country for immigrants.

<A HREF="http://www.eda.admin.ch/washington_emb/e/home/culedu/educat/contest/docs.Par.0009.UpFile.pdf/repshe">Immigration in Switzerland</A>

<i>.....Swiss Society and The Laws
One reason Switzerland has the highest rate of foreigners in western Europe is its lengthynaturalization requirements. People who would have long ago been naturalized in other countriesare still considered foreigners in Switzerland, making its percentage much higher than in other European nations.Before even considering applying for citizenship, a foreigner has to live in Switzerland for 10-12years before becoming eligible to start the process.When that period passes, the candidate first applies for permission at the federal level to start thenaturalization process. Like the United States, Switzerland's government is a federal system, withnational, state and municipal branches of power.The candidate then has to secure approval in her municipality. Each city or town has its ownrequirements and sometimes charges high fees to approve an application.Once that step is passed, the candidate next goes to her canton, or state, to repeat the process.Only after the locality and canton approve the application can she be considered for Swisscitizenship from the federal government."This is one of the reasons why many foreigners don't apply for Swiss citizenship and why wehave so many foreigners living here," Naudi said.Official statistics show 19.3 percent of those in Switzerland are foreigners, but Naudi said the realfigure is closer to 21 percent if asylum seekers, illegal entrants and diplomats are included.Children face a different path to naturalization. A child born in Switzerland of non-native parents isnot automatically given Swiss citizenship, but has to wait until he is 18 to start the applicationprocess...........


..........There are nearly 3,000 localities in Switzerland, each with different rules and regulations.In one case, the people of Pratteln, a town near Basel, were allowed to vote on a slate of citizenship applicants three years ago. The people rejected all the Turks and Yugoslavs on the list and only approved Italians and Spaniards. The situation repeated itself in March 2000 in the townof Emmen, near Lucerne. The town's residents rejected all 48 Turks and Yugoslavs on the list.

Integration and Fighting Stereotypes
The buzzword of the moment in the immigration debate is integration. From the conservative bloc to the left-wingers, nearly all groups say Switzerland must do a better job of integrating the current group of foreigners into Swiss society. Mondial Contact is a grass-roots organization in Geneva that works for complete social andofficial acceptance of foreigners through integration projects. Located in an office close to theUnited Nations, the group organizes programs, seminars and festivals to teach native Swiss moreabout the culture of the newcomers, and to help new arrivals navigate the often-complex processof living in a foreign country.To the Mondial Contact workers, Switzerland should do no less than accept its new status as animmigrant-accepting nation."The Parliament has to recognize that we are a multicultural society and that the government has a big responsibility in this society and it must create laws for greater integration," said PatricioDaza, a project manager. Daza himself was an immigrant from Pinochet-era Chile, but is now aSwiss citizen. Mondial Contact also tries to address traditional stereotypes about foreigners, such as theirsupposed laziness and unwillingness to learn Swiss languages. But one characteristic attributed to immigrants that seems to stick in the Swiss consciousness is the idea that immigrants are more heavily involved in criminal activity than natives. Naudi said the government couldn't release statistics, but said that discussions about the issue of immigrants and crime are taking place among intellectuals and government officials."We can't say much because of these discussions, but if you look at certain records, you can see that there are more foreigners involved in certain areas, like drugs and organized crime," he said.........</i>


<A HREF="http://query.nytimes.com/search/abstract?res=F30614FA3B5E0C728EDDAC0894D8404482">FOREIGN DESK | May 21, 2000, Sunday Swiss Refusal Of Citizenship To Immigrants Raises Debate</A>
<i>
By ELIZABETH OLSON (NYT) 806 words
Late Edition - Final, Section 1, Page 9, Column 1
ABSTRACT - Rejection of 48 naturalization applications in Emmen, a suburb of Lucern, stirs debate across Switzerland and charges that local government's vote on issue amounted to racist selection; all those turned down are Turks or people from former Yugoslavia; Emmen vote makes clear that foreigners must virtually become more Swiss than the Swiss--pass what the media call the 'fondue test'--to stand a chance of holding a passport (M)
</i>

<A HREF="http://www.sit-edu-geneva.ch/M.COOK__switzerland.htm">The Changing face of Switzerland: Swiss Immigration in the New Millennium</A>
<i>........Furthermore, some foreigners may believe—and perhaps not wrongly so—that the Swiss naturalization process discriminates against certain nationalities. In a recent case that made the international newspapers, the people of Emmen, a town in the Lucerne canton, rejected almost 50 naturalization applicants from Turkey, Hungary and the Former Yugoslavia. They accepted, however, all applicants of Italian origin. <b>The rejected applicants included young adults who were born in Switzerland to immigrant parents and raised there—for them Switzerland has always been home</b>......</i>

<A HREF="http://www.worldandi.com/public/2000/May/immigs.html">Europe's Unsettling Immigrants</A>
<i>Atil Kutoglu dresses Austria's grandes dames and leading ladies. His creations have floated down runways as far away as Milan, New York, and his native Istanbul, Turkey.
His collections, drawing heavily on the Ottoman culture of his homeland, have won the 31-year-old acclaim throughout Austria, where he made his design debut back in 1991.

"In Austria, artists are very respected," Kutoglu says. "If you are African, or from Hong Kong, then you will be respected. [In my role as an artist,] I never had a bad experience with anybody here for being foreign."
But when he enters a Viennese post office or grocery store, where nonnatives can be snubbed or treated rudely, "there it is different. But I think it is getting much better. They're doing a lot to change the image of having a bad attitude toward foreigners, and I think it's working."
Austria, like many European nations, has been a magnet for immigrants since World War II--if not long before. Unlike the United States, which is proud of its immigrant heritage, many European countries continue to be in denial of the phenomenon.
"The basic distinction is that the United States considers itself to be a land of immigration. Europe doesn't," says Jeroen Doomernik, a professor with the Institute for Migration and Ethnic Studies in Amsterdam. "It doesn't make a lot of difference in terms of immigration but it does in terms of integration policy." ..........</i>


Vietnamese refugees rally for civil rights in Frankfort

I don't recall a similar rally by the Vietnamese population in Houston.

<A HREF="http://www.houston.org/houstonseconomy/population.htm">Population:
Houston is among the nation’s fastest-growing and most diverse metropolitan areas</A>
<i>.........
Houston, which prizes its ethnic diversity as a source of strength in a global econ­omy, is becoming still more diverse. The ’00 census found that no racial or ethnic group now constitutes a majority of the metro area population; by ’30, under reasonable scenarios, Hispanics could become a majority. Asians—nearly 5 percent of the population in ’00—will climb to 10 percent within the next two decades........</i>

So the Swiss and the other Europeans are the ideal that Houstonians (Americans) should strive for?


Mango