Ethnicity (or Yanks vs Euros)

bonkey

Originally posted by Sharkey
By the way -- if you must know, it is MY PERCEPTION that most of Western Europe as a whole is ineffectual militarily -- with the Brits being the exception. Is it a superiority complex that would lead us to believe that most Europen countries have ineffectual militaries?

Either its your perception, or its Americans perception in general - I'm not sure of which, based on your mixed use of "MY" and "us" - unless of course you are using the royal plural

In either case, I would quote another of your lines from a recent post : Examples, please?

Also, as to your assertion about the US healthcare being the best in the world : The United States spends $3,700 per person on healthcare, more than any other country, but only ranks
18th in the World Health Organisation (WHO) evaluation of health systems in 191 countries.

In most people's books, 18th is not "best".

I would further point out that in a recent "best places to live" survey which was much discussed on Humanities a few months ago, America again did not rank top.

At the end of the day, the whole argument is becoming pointless. We discuss America, and America gets criticised. The typical "pro-American" responses boil down to "you hate us", "your anti-American" or "hey, we're not the only ones". Here's a simple point...we were discussing the US - what the hell would we be criticisng Ireland, South Africa, Outer Mongolia, or any other nation when the discussion is about America?

America is not perfect. Very few people claim it is, and those that do are blinkered beyond belief (but I havent seen any on these boards). However, the defensiveness shown against American criticism is generally "how dare you criticise us like this", which is not an answer to the criticism, it is simply avoiding answering it.

As to why there is so much criticism of America and Americans? Well, on one hand, perhaps its merited. Perhaps we're just begrudgers and wish we were as successful as the US. Or maybe its because we disagree with American policy, and feel that many/most Americans grasp of issues outside their own nation is lacking.

When the people of many diverse nations get lumped as "Euros", it simply shows the lack of understanding which Americans have of the European continent. Well, lack of understanding, or just plain ignorance. I prefer the former of these options because, in fairness, Americans are pretty civil and hospitable peiple for the most part.

We, the people of Europe, are formed from diverse nations, with diverse histories, diverse social structures, and are basically as dissimiliar as the Americans are to the members of the various nations from the American continent and its surrounding islands.

How would Americans react if we treated Canadians, Brazilians, Mexicans, Cubans, etc all as one people? I think they'd tell us that we hadnt a clue what we were talking about. And yet, somehow, it seems acceptable to brand our continent into one group?

It might be a handy moniker, but when used in any form of generalisation, it completely falls apart. The individual nations of the EU cling to their national identity as proudly now as they did when they were at war amongst each other 50 years ago. You tell a German, an Austrian and a Swiss-German that they are the same people because they come from geographically close areas and speak the same language, and you're likely to get laughed at or hit. Add in the French, the Spanish, the Italians, and you'll definitely get hit.

jc

Mr.Applepie

Originally posted by bonkey


You tell a German, an Austrian and a Swiss-German that they are the same people because they come from geographically close areas and speak the same language, and you're likely to get laughed at or hit. Add in the French, the Spanish, the Italians, and you'll definitely get hit.

jc

Experiment:
get a german and a frenchman in the same room then explain to them how they are the same as they come from europe then see how long it takes for them to stab you!

yankinlk

or yanks

Gargoyle

Originally posted by bonkey


Also, as to your assertion about the US healthcare being the best in the world : The United States spends $3,700 per person on healthcare, more than any other country, but only ranks
18th in the World Health Organisation (WHO) evaluation of health systems in 191 countries.

In most people's books, 18th is not "best".

Any health care ranking that has Oman number 8 and Finland number 31 is pretty useless in my book. Indeed, the venerated Canadian system finnished 30th?!

Its all about how they score the rankings. You can manipulate data virtually any way you want to.

I think what Sharkey was getting at was, if you want the best healthcare in the world (as in an operation), many come to the US to get it if you have the money.

I'd also like to add that Americans are a far more ethnically and religiously diverse group than Europeans are, but it doesn't stop you from calling us - all of us - yanks.

bonkey

I had some stuff posted about the healthcare issue, but I'd rather not have two topics running inside this thread. If anyone is interested in discussing the healthcare point, take it up in a new thread please....

Originally posted by Gargoyle
I'd also like to add that Americans are a far more ethnically and religiously diverse group than Europeans are, but it doesn't stop you from calling us - all of us - yanks.

I would point out that you are one nation, following one set of national laws, embodied by one constitution. You are, in the eyes of your own laws, one people. While you may consider yourselves New Yorkers, Texans, Alaskans, etc, you are still one people in one nation. Europe is not.

Also, most citizens of the US consider themselves to be "Americans". Not "from the continental landmass of North and South America" but rather "from the nation of the United States".

I am not European, I am Irish.

In the same way that most citizens of the US would take offense to me calling Cubans by the term American (as would the Cubans), Citizens of European nations will generally take offense to having their national identity stripped away from them by using the term "Euros".

The term "yank" is no more derogatory than calling an Irish person a "Paddy", and it still refers to your national identity.

I would also point out the user of these forums called "yankinlk". I have heard several Americans refer to Americans as yanks.

I cant honestly say I cant remember the last time I heard a german call him or herself a kraut, and Irish person refer to themselves as a Paddy, and so on. I definitely have never heard anyone refer to themselves as a Euro.

I would agree that your religious diversity is probably greater than ours, but I would suggest that this is mostly because of the number of "fringe" religions and cults in the US, coupled to the vast number of "flavours" of Christianity which seem to abound in the US.

However, the claim that your ethnicity is more diverse than Europes is, quite frankly, ridiculous. I am very interested in hearing how you see this as being true - do you even have an idea of how many ethnic groups exist within Europe?

jc

Hobbes

I'd also like to add that Americans are a far more ethnically and religiously diverse group than Europeans

Not really, but a lot of America has been forced to live with it for a long time so some areas of America I would say yes but on the whole vs Europe it's pretty much the same.

but it doesn't stop you from calling us - all of us - yanks.

That's because your typical Europeans have no idea where the word comes from and don't that it only applies to a certain part of the US. A bit like Americans thinking I live in France when I mention Europe.

I think the term was an offshoot from Winston Churchills "Oversexed, Overpayed and Over here" comments.

Yank can be offensive depending on who's saying it and the context. I'm sure a lot of people here wouldn't take too kindly being called "Paddy" by English people that they didn't know.

As for Medical healthcare. Your right you can work it different ways.

I would certainly not put the US system as the best in the world. Sure you may have better doctors or machines (which again is probably not true) but the system at which to get to them makes it detrimental to all but the rich.

Jaden

Hobbes, you muppet. Yank is short for Yankee, and is ALOT older than WW2.



http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_260.html

Hobbes

I am well aware Yank is short for Yankee. However the term (in it's offensive version) didn't really appear until WW2.

Yankee does not mean American. It's like calling Irish "Frogs".

dahamsta

I hate it when that happens! My response was a total mish-mash! Archived for posterity, but I won't post it here.

And Double Gah!

adam

Sharkey

Originally posted by bonkey

I am not European, I am Irish.

Respectfully, most Americans tend to lump Irish in the rest of Europe. Certainly we recognize the geographical relationship b/w GB and Ireland w.r.t. the European mainland.

I have never before heard any Brit friend of mine being offended at being classified as a "Euro" -- do most Irish insist that they are not?

Sharkey

Originally posted by Hobbes
I am well aware Yank is short for Yankee. However the term (in it's offensive version) didn't really appear until WW2.

Yankee does not mean American. It's like calling Irish "Frogs".

Actually, the term "Yank" has been around since before the U.S. Civil war (circa 1860). The term "Yankee" has been around since before American Independence.

"Yankee Doodle" is the most famous song of the American Revolution. The origin of ``yankee'' remains disputed. Nobody knows how it came to mean New Englander. But "doodle" means a fool or simpleton. The British song Yankee Doodle mocked Americans, but Revolutionary troops contemptuously sang it right back to the British, turning it into a patriotic tune.

Sharkey

Originally posted by bonkey

In either case, I would quote another of your lines from a recent post : Examples, please?

Fair enough. It appears at first blush that all of Europe cannot handle the turmoil in their own back yards, e.g., the Balkans.

French and Italian armies are the butt of jokes.

The Germans at one time had an effective fighting force, but now they're mired in their own guilt so much they dast not ever send a single troop beyond their border.

Anyway -- when Germany still had a military, they managed to overrun practically all of Europe save for G.B. in record time -- despite the fact they had to rescue Italian troops from their own incompetence at the same time.

All this is not to say Euros as a whole are bad, stupid whatever -- it merely illustrates that most Euro militaries suck.

Sharkey

Originally posted by bonkey

Also, as to your assertion about the US healthcare being the best in the world : The United States spends $3,700 per person on healthcare, more than any other country, but only ranks
18th in the World Health Organisation (WHO) evaluation of health systems in 191 countries.

In most people's books, 18th is not "best".

Respectfully, this does not take into account many of the social problems we have -- like drug abuse, the large number of illegal aliens.

The WHO assessment based its findings on healthy life expectancy, efficiency and equality of the health system and whether it responds to the social and financial needs of the people it is designed to serve.

Of those parameters, none seems too objective. Certainly most minorities don't live as long as the average Anglo in the U.S., but that's not entirely the fault of the government. Violence among black teenagers and young adults has practically wiped out an entire generation and the available black man/woman ratio has led to alot of single black mothers, who aren't as able to provide for their children as children having two parents.

In fact -- the WHO cites various causes for why the United States ranks relatively low among wealthy nations. These reasons include:

In the United States, some groups, such as Native Americans, rural African Americans and the inner city poor, have extremely poor health, more characteristic of a poor developing country rather than a rich industrialized one.

The HIV epidemic causes a higher proportion of death and disability to U.S. young and middle-aged than in most other advanced countries. HIV-AIDS cut three months from the healthy life expectancy of male American babies born in 1999, and one month from female lives;

The U.S. is one of the leading countries for cancers relating to tobacco, especially lung cancer Tobacco use also causes chronic lung disease.

Fairly high levels of violence, especially of homicides, when compared to other industrial countries.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Again -- these factors are something apart from what the US healthcare system PROVIDES as compared to other healthcare systems and the WHO rating does not reflect the comparative quality and quality of services.

Victor

This is the only accepted meaning of Euro:

Sand

Europeans dont really dislike americans tbh. And the US has yet to invade Europe so Id imagine theyre not exactly frothing at the mouth about Europe either. The vast, vast majority of this Eurotrash vs Fat Yanks thing is basically due to left wing bile filtering down to the average joe soaps on both sides.

Ive yet to meet a left leaning person who does not despise the US, not on ethnic grounds of course, but usually because theyre going it alone internationally (they can you know, its the right of a nation-state), because they have the death penalty (Because the majority of americans want it, and far far more europeans than the left might think want it too- me included), because they are the the worlds economic superpower (Dammit how can we claim that socialism is the best if the US is outperforming just about every state in the world- including the EU), and because of american foreign policy (dont blame Hussein for being an evil dictator, blame the US for trying to unseat him), and whatever war the americans are currently engaged in (Bombing people who can only launch suicide attacks on airliners just isnt fair, man).

Sadly the left has a lot of power in the EU, even to the extent of supressing free speech when they dont like what the speech is. As such they use their position to launch tirades against the US, safe in the knowledge that their security to be smug is guaranteed by the US (the European armies are pathetically underfunded, but the US simply cannot allow a hostile power to control Europes economic muscle).

I guess to summarise, theres is no mutual dislike between the EU and the US beyond the rants of the left wing.

Sharkey

Originally posted by Sand

... Sadly the left has a lot of power in the EU, even to the extent of supressing free speech when they dont like what the speech is. As such they use their position to launch tirades against the US, safe in the knowledge that their security to be smug is guaranteed by the US (the European armies are pathetically underfunded, but the US simply cannot allow a hostile power to control Europes economic muscle).

I guess to summarise, theres is no mutual dislike between the EU and the US beyond the rants of the left wing.

I have no idea what nationality you are, but you've summarized my fellings on these issues. I would add, however, that the desire to quench the free speech of "the other side" is certainly present in the U.S., e.g., University "speech codes" and other politically correct b.s.

Sand

I was thinking more on the scale of attempting to sabatoge democracy when it returns the "wrong" result. It mightnt have reached the US but when Austria elected a government containing a right wing party (which gained about 25% of the vote), the EU refused to accept the governemt and did its best to ostracise it. Eventually they were forced into a climb down. As of yet the world has not fallen into chaos merely because the Austrian people didnt want to elect a "safe" socialist party. The fact that the Austrians stuck it out was a win for democracy imo.

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Sand
I was thinking more on the scale of attempting to sabatoge democracy when it returns the "wrong" result. It mightnt have reached the US but when Austria elected a government containing a right wing party (which gained about 25% of the vote), the EU refused to accept the governemt and did its best to ostracise it. Eventually they were forced into a climb down. As of yet the world has not fallen into chaos merely because the Austrian people didnt want to elect a "safe" socialist party. The fact that the Austrians stuck it out was a win for democracy imo.

I recall reading how concerned the rest of the EU after Italy's elections produced the "wrong" result. Warning...thought police!! Its pretty disgraceful, really.

As much as people in the EU clammored about the election fiasco in the US, if the roles of the respective candidates had been exacty reversed, I have no doubts they would all be ecstatic about the result.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Gargoyle


Any health care ranking that has Oman number 8 and Finland number 31 is pretty useless in my book. Indeed, the venerated Canadian system finnished 30th?!

Its all about how they score the rankings. You can manipulate data virtually any way you want to.

I think what Sharkey was getting at was, if you want the best healthcare in the world (as in an operation), many come to the US to get it if you have the money.

I'd also like to add that Americans are a far more ethnically and religiously diverse group than Europeans are, but it doesn't stop you from calling us - all of us - yanks.

Gargoyle, please get your facts straight. The ranking was based on a lot of things- not least of all cost-effectiveness, quality of delivery, primary care, operation success rates, post-operative care, after-care, social back-up services, waiting lists, etc. Having practised in the US, France and Britain, I would say that the most effective health care system in those three countries is France. Health care there is free at the point of delivery, waiting lists are virtually unheard of, and the standard of care is extremely high. The percentage of those in the US able to access the highest levels of care is considerably lower than that in other nations, which contributes to our ranking no doubt.

Add to that the fact that at the RNOH, we have at least 50-60 orthopaedic operations a year involving American patients who had their operations miscalculated who need to be re-done, and it paints a less clear picture. Not to mention the hundreds of primary biomechanical tests that have been misconducted by my fellow American physicians across the Atlantic. And that's just in my field, Lord knows how many similar results need correction across other areas of expertise.

American physicians are quicker to recommend referrals, operations and in many cases, unneccessary tests due to pressure from hospital administrators and insurers. As a result, the quality of primary care back home is certainly worse than I've seen across North Africa and the Middle East, where even a highly specialized consultant's knowledge of general medicine is usually spot-on. In many urban areas back home, the ideas of community medicine, aftercare, and primary physical examination are fading fast, being replaced by high-end diagnostic equipment and robotic physicians who follow an investigative protocol without critical thought. All of which raises the cost of health care and lowers the effectiveness of its delivery to the patient. Add to that the observation that unitary taxation levels in the US are only slightly lower than that in most European countries, and you start asking where it all goes. We spend a higher proportion of our administration's budget on defense than we do on healthcare, in fact, our healthcare budget is a miserable proportion of our GDP. No one seems to mind that much back home, despite the fact that public health awareness is incredibly high on a global scale.

I'm not saying good health-care is unobtainable in the US- far from it, some of the most eminent medical minds in the fields of cardiology, nephrology and internal medicine hail from our shores. I am merely saying that the manner and proportion in which such care is delivered to the general populace is nothing short of disgraceful. In Britain, millions complain about the NHS's effectiveness, even though it is, for the most part, one of the best health-care systems in Europe, it's only fault being a backlog of non-essential operations. It's impossible to satisfy people 100% regarding health-care, after all, without good health, nothing else really matters, so people tend to take it seriously, and expect miracles.

As for the idea that data is easily manipulable by those who know how to do it, I ask you directly what the WHO would stand to gain by doing such a thing. In my experience, their studies have been sound, well-researched, and thoroughly followed up by practicioners everywhere. Of course all studies carry some form of bias, but this is usually clearly and objectively stated in the abstract of most of these reports.

I think it's easy for many of us to get carried away with patriotic vigor(though I personally believe patriotism is a virtue of the viscious), and carry the notion that the US is the best place to live, the best place to work, and the best place to get sick. While that's fine within the US to an extent, stating it as a matter of fact elsewhere is likely to get you into trouble

Occy

Sand

Originally posted by Gargoyle

As much as people in the EU clammored about the election fiasco in the US, if the roles of the respective candidates had been exacty reversed, I have no doubts they would all be ecstatic about the result.

I agree. The interesting thing about the EU is that its now increasingly rare that its citizens are asked to vote on treaties. Ireland was the only country to have a referendum on the Nice Treaty (Provided for the enlargment of the EU and the EU "feel good" force). We were apparently trusted to return the "right" result because of our pro-europe policies and views.

Unfortunately, it was rejected. As such the Nice Treaty cannot take effect until we ratify it. So there will be a second attempt for us to ratify the treaty. Should we vote no again, then I wouldnt be surprised if some attempt is made to remove the need for a referendum.

Von

Originally posted by Gargoyle
I recall reading how concerned the rest of the EU after Italy's elections produced the "wrong" result. Warning...thought police!! Its pretty disgraceful, really.

I think most Euros and all SANE people thought Italy's election result was bad because the National Alliance party has its roots in Mussolini's fascist party and its leader Gianfranco Fini comes out with stuff like “Mussolini was the greatest statesman of the twentieth century”, and “Fascism has a tradition of honesty, correctness and good government”. Mister Fini, Italy's deputy prime minister, now calls himself a “post-fascist” whatever that is.

The president (NA's Francesco Storace) of the region of Latium wants to establish an “historical commission” to review all of the books used in the schools so as to correct what he regards as a “biased ” and “communist” presentation of history, i.e., one that emphasises the criminal nature of fascism and Nazism. The Justice Ministry wants to assign a policeman to every housing block. Sounds lovely. Why would the crazy Euro left be opposed to such people and policies.

Boston

"I agree. The interesting thing about the EU is that its now increasingly rare that its citizens are asked to vote on treaties. Ireland was the only country to have a referendum on the Nice Treaty (Provided for the enlargment of the EU and the EU "feel good" force). We were apparently trusted to return the "right" result because of our pro-europe policies and views.

Unfortunately, it was rejected. As such the Nice Treaty cannot take effect until we ratify it. So there will be a second attempt for us to ratify the treaty. Should we vote no again, then I wouldnt be surprised if some attempt is made to remove the need for a referendum."

hmm, sorthly after the no vote, the leaders of several european countries were asked if they would now have a referendum, the answer was no, they said they couldnt take the risk of a repeat.

the reason ireland got a referendum was due to the RRF, which may challenge irelands statues

Sand

The scarier prospect is that the Italian people elected this utter and complete nutter to run their country...how could so many millions of people be wrong when so many left wing think tanks and parties and student groups are right?

I dont know about you but a policeman in every housing block would be quite nice...should cut down on crime nicely though some of those poor defenceless scumbag crinimals may suffer from such police brutality as being arrested or *gasp* even held in holding cells.

Dig deep into any politicians past whose ever talked in public and im sure youll find some comments you wont agree with. The important thing to note is that the Italian people didnt consider any comments made to be relevant. Perhaps the election should be held again until they elect the right, i mean left, candidate.

And a *regional* president wants to review history books to remove any left wing biasedness- Well we better alert the press right away.

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus


Gargoyle, please get your facts straight.

Bob, what facts have I in that post that are wrong please? Link?

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus

The ranking was based on a lot of things- not least of all cost-effectiveness, quality of delivery, primary care, operation success rates, post-operative care, after-care, social back-up services, waiting lists, etc. Having practised in the US, France and Britain, I would say that the most effective health care system in those three countries is France. Health care there is free at the point of delivery, waiting lists are virtually unheard of, and the standard of care is extremely high. The percentage of those in the US able to access the highest levels of care is considerably lower than that in other nations, which contributes to our ranking no doubt.

I am well aware of the role cost-effectiveness played in the survey, Bob. In my mind, that invalidates it from being used as anything other than a cost analysis study. You can say that Oman's health care is more cost-effective than Finland's or Canada's (just to take an example), but you cannot use this study to honestly say that its "better". Please tell me you realize this.

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Add to that the fact that at the RNOH, we have at least 50-60 orthopaedic operations a <snipped Medical soapbox speach>

As for the idea that data is easily manipulable by those who know how to do it, I ask you directly what the WHO would stand to gain by doing such a thing. In my experience, their studies have been sound, well-researched, and thoroughly followed up by practicioners everywhere. Of course all studies carry some form of bias, but this is usually clearly and objectively stated in the abstract of most of these reports.

You ask me directly, so I'll answer directly. I do not believe that there was any specific intentions by the WHO. I'm sure that they designed the study to best reflect what they thought was important. All I said was that by adjusting the relative importance of various statistics, you could produce a list with many different orders.

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus

I think it's easy for many of us to get carried away with patriotic vigor(though I personally believe patriotism is a virtue of the viscious), and carry the notion that the US is the best place to live, the best place to work, and the best place to get sick.

I think you read into my post far too much. I didn't say all people with the money came to the US for operations or anything about general care or how the US is as a place to work or live or anything else.

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus

While that's fine within the US to an extent, stating it as a matter of fact elsewhere is likely to get you into trouble

That's ridiculous Bob. If you are, in fact, referring to me with this quote, you're putting words into my mouth.


PS - A libertarian aspousing the benefits of socialist healthcare systems. I thought I'd never see the day. Please tell me Bob, exactly what part of the libertarian party philosophy DO you follow?

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
but usually because theyre going it alone internationally (they can you know, its the right of a nation-state),

This explains the interference the US has had in countless nations, funding guerrilla wars, overthrowing governments, and so on? Do those nations not have the right to go it alone as well?

because they are the the worlds economic superpower (Dammit how can we claim that socialism is the best if the US is outperforming just about every state in the world- including the EU),

I dont claim socialism is the best. Hell, I love capitalism. However, I recognise that while capitalism as an ideal is wonderful, capitalism in practice is corrupt and dirty. What I complain about in the current capitalist market is the amount of human-rights abuses the world over which are a result of capitalist exploitation. Capitalism has made the world a much better place for the rich, a reasonably better place for the not-so-rich-not-so-poor, and has systematically abused the poor.

and because of american foreign policy (dont blame Hussein for being an evil dictator, blame the US for trying to unseat him)

Here we go again.

American foreign policy funded Hussein, and only when he turned his beady eyes on Kuwait did they care about what a nasty sort he was. Also - they have never really tried to unseat him. The closest they got was when Bush snr encouraged the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam after the Gulf War, promising that American would support them. Unfortunately, when he said support, he meant of the moral support kind, not the military kind, because the US was not going to invade a foreign nation to overthrow a leader....which is odd considering how proficient at it they are.

and whatever war the americans are currently engaged in (Bombing people who can only launch suicide attacks on airliners just isnt fair, man).

No - bombing innocent people who had nothing to do with the attacks and writing off their innocent lives as "unavoidable collateral damage" is what I object to - especially when armed soldiers killed by accidentally off-target friendlyl fire are given massive coverage as brave heroes tragically killed.

I would also object to the lack of proof offered to the people (and their blind acceptance of said lack of proof) to justify these actions. Sure, the US may have been correct, but as a precendent, it does not bode well for civil rights, disclosure, and democracy in the long run.

I guess to summarise, theres is no mutual dislike between the EU and the US beyond the rants of the left wing.

Really? Any time I criticise the US, I get called an American hater, or anti-American. I guess this means that I must be a lefty.

jc

Sand

This explains the interference the US has had in countless nations, funding, guerrilla wars, overthrowing governments, and so on? Do those nations not have the right to go it alone as well?

They do. But as history will teach when two nations interests come into conflict its usually resolved in an uncivillised manner. Sad , but true.

What I complain about in the current capitalist market is the amount of human-rights abuses the world over which are a result of capitalist exploitation.

I agree that human rights abuses are terrible in many developing nations. However, it will not be solved by some feel good legislation or directives. If the workers of the developing nations are stuck in 19th century conditions then they will have to organise 19th century unions and political representation to fight for their interests- much as was done in Europe and North America.

American foreign policy funded Hussein, and only when he turned his beady eyes on Kuwait did they care about what a nasty sort he was.

Youre right. But a previous US administrations short term planning does not bind future administrations from doing what should be done. Hussein is a destabilising influence, he should be removed, and his people will be a hell of a lot happier once hes gone. So heres hoping Iraq is stop number two for the anti terrorism campaign.

No - bombing innocent people who had nothing to do with the attacks

Taliban and Bin Laden did have something to do with the attacks. Theyre the ones being bombed.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Gargoyle


I think what Sharkey was getting at was, <<<if you want the best healthcare in the world (as in an operation)>>>, many come to the US to get it if you have the money.

<<<I'd also like to add that Americans are a far more ethnically and religiously diverse group than Europeans are>>>, but it doesn't stop you from calling us - all of us - yanks.

The two statements I've outlined in carats are presented as facts, but are far from correct Gargoyle.

You seem to have narrowed your view of health care to "operations", which as a practicioner, I find somewhat insulting. Surgery should and often is, the last considered treatment option in many fields (mine being a notable exception :P). Perhaps the US is one of the leading nations in terms of operational quality and success, but healthcare is far more than that isn't it? It's about the accessibility of the service, the cost versus benefit, and the ideals of treating your fellow man first, and thinking about payment later. If we were ranking health-care systems based on ethos of practise, I would put us near the bottom of the pile- I challenge anyone to tell me otherwise.

You can say that Oman's health care is more cost-effective than Finland's or Canada's (just to take an example), but you cannot use this study to honestly say that its "better". Please tell me you realize this.

I don't realize that actually, simply because it isn't true. Having been to Oman, Bahrain and Qatar, I would say that the quality of community and primary healthcare in itself is better and more freely available than that found in the US. When I've been back home, I've seen elderly patients being forced to wait for hours while MediCare validates their insurance for a potentially life-saving drug. I've seen people being turned away from even a basic physical exam(which costs roughly under $2 to carry out) because their insurance wasn't in order. In many of the countries mentioned in the study, one's ability to pay does not come into the picture of the process of treatment, compensation is only sought after treatment has been carried out. To my eyes, this simple moral distinction has huge implications for the ethos of a health-care system.

I think you read into my post far too much. I didn't say all people with the money came to the US for operations or anything about general care or how the US is as a place to work or live or anything else.

I was just making a passing observation about several of our fellow citizens Gargoyle, perhaps it is you who reads too much into my statement?

PS - A libertarian aspousing the benefits of socialist healthcare systems. I thought I'd never see the day. Please tell me Bob, exactly what part of the libertarian party philosophy DO you follow?

I don't follow a party philosophy 100% dyed blue Gargoyle, I doubt anybody does in practise either. If I find a policy intolerable or unjust, I'll speak my mind, the freedom of speech and independant thought is the ideal that unites most libretarians, hence, our internal disagreement tends to be the greatest across all parties. But that's the beauty of debate, there is no right answer, merely points of view.

As for why I believe the concept of health-care free at the point of delivery: I firmly believe that health care is as much a right as education up to secondary school level. If our government manages to fund public school initiatives, and keep several defense contractors well-supplied with orders, can it not also provide for the health and well-being of our nation? Let us be honest here, in the current political climate, a government that is willing to fund programmes that pay for the care of the sick and the elderly is just asking a bit too much. Our politicians need to realize that providing health care of a high standard free at the point of the delivery can only be a good thing, and that free healthcare does not equal a welfare state.

A system which promotes primary and community care, which encourages people to seek medical advice rather than grimace at the thought of the next premium, which has the flexibility in general practise to cope with errors that creep into all of our professional careers. To be able to practise in a system where you don't have to constantly be glancing over your shoulder at a lawsuit. All these things contribute enormously to my assessment of a healthcare system. I currently don't practise in it, but when I return to do so, I certainly intend to do my best to change it. Nothing to my mind is worse than a system which intentionally blocks the treatment of suffering with the road-block of cost. If anyone disagrees with me, I invite you all to take a look at Harlem General, where more seriously ill people are turned away due to cost, than from than other hospital in the Western world.

Occy

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
I agree that human rights abuses are terrible in many developing nations. However, it will not be solved by some feel good legislation or directives. If the workers of the developing nations are stuck in 19th century conditions then they will have to organise 19th century unions and political representation to fight for their interests- much as was done in Europe and North America.

This is where I disagree. The development of what is currently the developed world cannot be compared to the development of other nations today. Why? Because we did not have to contend with vastly more advanced cultures taking advantage of us while we went through that process.

We, as the developed nations, should be genuinely helping these emerging economies develop into competitive entities, capable of taking part in true free trade. We at the very least should not be exploiting them.

Youre right. But a previous US administrations short term planning does not bind future administrations from doing what should be done. Hussein is a destabilising influence, he should be removed, and his people will be a hell of a lot happier once hes gone. So heres hoping Iraq is stop number two for the anti terrorism campaign

I disagree that Hussein should be removed for being a "destabilising influence". By that logic, the US and/or the western powers can take out any nation's rulers who's ideology differs to their own.

There is a case for the removal of Hussein if it can be proven that he is indeed developing WMDs, and there is credible evidence that this is being done with the intention of using them. However, the problem here is that the proof needs to be more than a government telling its people "we know, trust us", which is pretty much all we are likely to see.

As a foreign policy issue, however, I feel that my point still stands. America has not significantly altered the direction of its interventionist foreign policy in the last few administrations (at least). America needs to be more careful about who it helps, and how it helps them. There is far too much of the short-sightedness which you refer to. When this leads to problems, yes, we can and should lay blame at both sides feet. I do not support or encourage the actions of individuals like Hussein. However, all too often the US is part of the reason that that problem exists, which we must recognise, and for that reason, I think the criticism is still valid.

America does a lot of good around the world. We dont recognise this often enough. Unfortunately, like in the news, its only the bad stuff which gets printed!

Taliban and Bin Laden did have something to do with the attacks. Theyre the ones being bombed.

Here is where my objection to the Afghanistan operations comes in....

The Taliban and Al Qaeda are being targetted but they are not the only people being bombed.

The bombs are not 100% accurate, nor is the intelligence which decides where they should be dropped. I feel that the civilian loss of life in Afghanistan is taken too casually, which only perpetuates this type of killing.

Put simply, there is too much of a rush under way to get things done quickly, which inevitably leads to greater civilian casualties.

I was interested to see that Sky had a news article saying that a US soldier lost a foot to a landmine in Afghanistan. Why is this interesting? Well, it shows how one-sided our reporting is. We dont report the Afghanis who suffer this every day of the year, but one US soldier getting injured is newsworthy. We get scant reporting about the civilian deaths, but one mis-dropped bomb killing friendly soldiers deserves hours of news coverage, including the funeral service which was held.

I am not saying we should tone down the respect for soldiers who put their lives at risk to protect their own nation (or their own nations interests), but I am saying that I find the casual approach to inocent civilian lives a stark and discomforting contrast to this respect we show for harm coming to those who have chosen to go into harms way as a career.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Gargoyle
A libertarian aspousing the benefits of socialist healthcare systems.

Funnily, I read his post as a physician with multinational in-the-field experience offering a point of view on a subject where he is almost certainly the most informed person on the boards capable of offering a valid perspective.

You, on the other hand, see it as some sort of political statement?

jc

Sand

Originally posted by bonkey

Here is where my objection to the Afghanistan operations comes in....

I feel that the civilian loss of life in Afghanistan is taken too casually, which only perpetuates this type of killing.

Heres where I have to disagree with you. The milatary doesnt decide when to go to war, the politicians do. However politicians (should at least) butt out and let the generals do their job, which is winning the war which theyve done extremely effectively in Afghanistan (I think US casualties included more accidents (8 was the number i heard about 2 weeks ago) than friendly fire or deaths from enemy fire).

The generals attempt to minimise risk to civillians, but there is always a risk present when you go to war. Thats why we use diplomacy whenever we can to avoid war. The generals prime aim is the preservation of their own soldiers lives. This is especially true for the US which is extremely leery of bodybags ever since Vietnam.

You complain about the attention given to the US deaths but it must be admitted theyre merely giving the market what it wants. What i mean is that American and western viewers relate to the experiences of their own soldiers far more than they do for the experiences of the ordinairy afghani. As such theyre far more interested in news of their soldiers. Sad, but true.

Im uncertain as how to reply to your view of Hussein and the U.S. We both recognise hes a bad thing, we both recognise that the US played a part in his rise-You merely demand prior undeniable proof that he is developing WMD, whereas I believe the fact he refuses to allow UN weapon inspectors into his country is proof enough.

As regards the devloping world doing what the developed world has already done, youve got a point when you say that europe and north america didnt have a advanced culture to contend with. However that is a double edged sword. One South Korea for example can avoid the mistakes made by the developed world merely by studying what worked and what didnt work for EU/US (Shorthand- dont get offended), whereas it was trial and error for the EU/US. Also capital investment from the EU/US allows for development of the countries infrastructure, technology spillovers and so on. All of this is a good thing.

I understand your concern as regards the worker. However it must be understood that while an Indonesian factory workers wage might seem shocking (think that No Logo woman quoted it as about $0.87) as compared to an average US wage of $10+ per hour, it has to be rembembered, that Indonesian products cost a fraction of the US value- due to simple supply and demand.

Also, even No Logo admits that there is already labour protection laws and mechanisms in Indonesia- they are simply not enforced. Until the Indonesian people demand a properly representitive democracy, they probably wont be enforced either. That is only something that the Indonesians can do themselves, assuming the whole country doesnt break up inside the next decade anyway.

Given the temporary nature of much of the capitla investment and the high degree of capital mobility presnt today, you might claim that if one country raises its standards of living (say on taxation of the companies to a modest level/and or protect its workers rights) then said companies might simply pack up and leave and find another contractor who will do the same work for cheaper. Theres little in the way of efficient solutions for that problem beyond like minded governments in the developing world following the EUs example in standardising practices etc etc, for the benfit of them all. Such organisations in Africa for example reamin a lot of talk rather than action, but then most of the African states are democracies only in name.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Von
I think most Euros and all SANE people thought Italy's election result was bad because the National Alliance party has its roots in Mussolini's fascist party and its leader Gianfranco Fini comes out with stuff like “Mussolini was the greatest statesman of the twentieth century”, and “Fascism has a tradition of honesty, correctness and good government”. Mister Fini, Italy's deputy prime minister, now calls himself a “post-fascist” whatever that is.

The president (NA's Francesco Storace) of the region of Latium wants to establish an “historical commission” to review all of the books used in the schools so as to correct what he regards as a “biased ” and “communist” presentation of history, i.e., one that emphasises the criminal nature of fascism and Nazism. The Justice Ministry wants to assign a policeman to every housing block. Sounds lovely. Why would the crazy Euro left be opposed to such people and policies.

I notice that you wrote SANE in red Von :rolleyes:

I'm an Italian, and from Rome and would consider such glib statements to be illeducated at best and insulting at worst coming from an armchair Socialist with, I suspect, little experience of Lazio (Latium is what the ancient Romans called it, btw) or Italy in general.

Sharkey

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
I don't realize that actually, simply because it isn't true. Having been to Oman, Bahrain and Qatar, I would say that the quality of community and primary healthcare in itself is better and more freely available than that found in the US.

Certainly I cannot argue with what I haven't seen.

When I've been back home, I've seen elderly patients being forced to wait for hours while MediCare validates their insurance for a potentially life-saving drug.

This I've never seen

I've seen people being turned away from even a basic physical exam(which costs roughly under $2 to carry out) because their insurance wasn't in order.

Now here I know you're at least a bit out of order. $2 doesn't buy the physician's time, much less pay for lighting and rent.

In many of the countries mentioned in the study, one's ability to pay does not come into the picture of the process of treatment, compensation is only sought after treatment has been carried out.

Except that these same people cannot get certain treatments no matter whether they can pay or not. If the issue is whether you will accept a system that sometimes makes some people wait a few hours for treatment because they choose to have the government (i.e., the taxpayers) pay their bills ... or whether you are going to provide mediocre healthcare to all and deny everyone the healthcare they may need because some people cannot afford it has huge implications for the ethos of a health-care system.

By the way -- onr thing I totally agree with you on is the issue of providing better primary care.

Sharkey

Originally posted by bonkey

Really? Any time I criticise the US, I get called an American hater, or anti-American. I guess this means that I must be a lefty.

jc

I don't know about everyone. I know I've accused you of making anti-American comments. Of course the last time I criticized you your comments did not exactly get a significant number of facts right and your statements were even contradictory one sentence to the next.

My point being that when you make critical remarks -- you should prepare to have your remarks challenged. If you've made grave factual and logical errors -- you've opened yourself up for criticism because when your arguments fail on BOTH facts and on logic -- people may wonder what the real source of your criticism lies.

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus

The two statements I've outlined in carats are presented as facts, but are far from correct Gargoyle.
Occy

FYI Bob, the words, "I think", usually denote opinion rather than fact.

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus

You seem to have narrowed your view of health care to "operations", which as a practicioner, I find somewhat insulting. Surgery should and often is, the last considered treatment option in many fields (mine being a notable exception :P). Perhaps the US is one of the leading nations in terms of operational quality and success, but healthcare is far more than that isn't it? It's about the accessibility of the service, the cost versus benefit, and the ideals of treating your fellow man first, and thinking about payment later. If we were ranking health-care systems based on ethos of practise, I would put us near the bottom of the pile- I challenge anyone to tell me otherwise.

No Bob, I stated my belief that Sharkey was referring to operations. Let me spell it out for you. Operations do not equal health care. I thought the way I stated it, it would be obvious enough (who would travel from another country for general care). If you did not get it, I'm sorry. Cost vs. Benefit, by the way, is a very flawed way to evaluate systems due to exchange rates and cost of living in various countries. Again I say, depending on the formulas used to evaluate the systems, you can produce many permutations of the list. Though you claim to be a physician, your opinion about ethos is just that, an opinion.

I was just making a passing observation about several of our fellow citizens Gargoyle, perhaps it is you who reads too much into my statement?

Uh huh...:p

Gargoyle

Originally posted by bonkey

Funnily, I read his post as a physician with multinational in-the-field experience offering a point of view on a subject where he is almost certainly the most informed person on the boards capable of offering a valid perspective.

You, on the other hand, see it as some sort of political statement?

jc

No, while I found his post interesting, I also found it very ironic that he was supporting a position that is nearly diametrically opposed to the position of the party to which he claims to belong.

PS- That's why I noted it in a PS

Sharkey

Originally posted by Gargoyle

Again I say, depending on the formulas used to evaluate the systems, you can produce many permutations of the list. Though you claim to be a physician, your opinion about ethos is just that, an opinion.

I would be very interested in seeing the WHO's parametric on evaluating healthcare and whether it takes into account various issues, such as violent crime, into count.

For example -- black Americans do not live as long as white Americans ON AVERAGE. However, this is primarily due to black-on-black crime, not any flaw in the healthcare system.

Drug abusing women are less likely to seek out prenatal care.

Foreigners illegally in the U.S. are less likely to seek primary care.

Broken system or bad rating system? Hmmmmmm!

+++++++++++++++

If I rated healthcare based on total dollars per person spent and total dollars worth of healthcare provided at no cost to the poor, I think the result would favor the U.S. far more than the WHOs model.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

I'm glad you agree with me on the point of primary healthcare Sharkey, fortunately there is a strong body of opinion behind its reinstatement on a community level back home, particularly in the deep south. Hopefully we in the north'll catch on soon, or I fear for the future of community medicine there.

Originally posted by Sharkey

Except that these same people cannot get certain treatments no matter whether they can pay or not. If the issue is whether you will accept a system that sometimes makes some people wait a few hours for treatment because they choose to have the government (i.e., the taxpayers) pay their bills ... or whether you are going to provide mediocre healthcare to all and deny everyone the healthcare they may need because some people cannot afford it has huge implications for the ethos of a health-care system.

The choice always exists in countries with socialized medicine to go private- you can wait for an operation- or you can go private. The choice exists, the vast majority of people however, are satisfied with the, let's face it, high standards demanded of and generally provided by nationalized healthcare. Most people are more comfortable with a family GP with a good track-record of referrals rather than flit from private practicioner to practicioner, relying on the words of their friends, family, insurance deal and the treatment policy that varies so unscrupulously in the private sector. Back home, it's insurance, or no health-care for the vast majority of the population. I firmly believe that the choice should be present in a system for it to be a viable one for all.

No Bob, I stated my belief that Sharkey was referring to operations. Let me spell it out for you. Operations do not equal health care. I thought the way I stated it, it would be obvious enough (who would travel from another country for general care). If you did not get it, I'm sorry. Cost vs. Benefit, by the way, is a very flawed way to evaluate systems due to exchange rates and cost of living in various countries. Again I say, depending on the formulas used to evaluate the systems, you can produce many permutations of the list.

Then your argument (and Sharkey's by extension) has no meaning I'm afraid. Proclaiming operational success as a criticism of the WHO report's findings is a meaningless statement. As for challenging cost vs. benefit, seeing how the standard of living in most of the countries ranked above the US is considerably lower for goods, services, and local taxation I think it makes it a far more viable manner in which to evaluate the healthcare system. As for criticizing statistical distributions/formulas used, the bias is more than reasonable, clearly stated (having read the report) and the margins of error easily fall within the boundaries of such a comparison study. Many permutations could no doubt be produced, but only if inherently flawed distributions with p variable bias were used, this would unfairly skew the study.

Though you claim to be a physician<snip>

I find this statement understandably offensive- regardless, it's up for those on boards who know me to draw their own conclusions. I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to such a pettily worded statment.

your opinion about ethos is just that, an opinion

An opinion broadly shared by many fellow professionals in the field across the globe Gargoyle. Or perhaps you think that insignificant? It matters to me not a whit how little you weigh my opinion, I'm confident it carries more value than yours by the virtue of the fact that I am in a position to observe the practical outcomes of such an ethos. Work on enough A&E wards, primary response shifts and ICU centers and you start to see the value of healthcare being provided without measuring the size of a patient's bank balance.

As I said previously, if you don't believe what a difference the ethos of a healthcare system makes to those who reap its benefits, simply visit a hospital in an underprivelaged area anywhere in the US, and just look around. Do the same at Hammersmith General, or Brixton county hospital in London, both in deprived areas, and the difference isn't just stark, but mind-boggling.

Occy

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
Though you claim to be a physician<snip>

---

I find this statement understandably offensive

Occy

Well I'm sorry if I've offended you, lol, but I have no reason to believe you are a physician other than the fact that you claim it. This is both a beauty and a problem of the internet.

Nevertheless, perhaps you will be less "offended" if I tell you that I have no reason to doubt your claims.

This all started because you took something I stated as an opinion - an opinion about someone else's post at that - and directly accused me of stating false facts, bob. Please don't go off the subject.

bonkey

Originally posted by Gargoyle
Well I'm sorry if I've offended you, lol, but I have no reason to believe you are a physician other than the fact that you claim it. This is both a beauty and a problem of the internet.

Complete and utter crap. You went out of your way to have a dig at the guy, and now you want to cover it up with the old "internet anonymity".

Do you think if you met Occy in person that you'd be any more the wise as to his profession? I somehow doubt it, but I would like to believe that in person you wouldnt be so rude as to question someones claims about their own profession so glibly.

As for this pathetic "only expressing an opinion" thing - give it a break. You are picking on dahamsta for expressing an opinion because

This is to say nothing of the fact that you are factually wrong. Do you even know the percentage of Americans households that own a gun? Perhaps you should look it up before you post this bunk.

Yes, for some reason, when you express an opinion, we shouldnt be trying to show you why it is wrong and not based on actual facts?

Sheesh - can you pronounce hypocritical?

jc

Gargoyle

Originally posted by bonkey


Yes, for some reason, when you express an opinion, we shouldnt be trying to show you why it is wrong and not based on actual facts?

Sheesh - can you pronounce hypocritical?

jc

Bonkey, my information was taken from a website. I don't keep the WHO healthcare rankings in my head.

And I think there's a big difference here. Dahatma's post was a pure prejucial insult-with no factual basis. I at least bothered to look up the rankings you referred to.

And, by the way, Bob went out of his way to "dig" at me first. And the simple fact is, we cannot know what profession he is in. He claims to be a physician. I have no real reason to doubt that claim and I stated as such. Have I touched a nerve here or what?

Gargoyle

Originally posted by bonkey


Yes, for some reason, when you express an opinion, we shouldnt be trying to show you why it is wrong and not based on actual facts?

Sheesh - can you pronounce hypocritical?

jc

Bonkey, my information was taken from a website. I don't keep the WHO healthcare rankings in my head.

And I think there's a big difference here. Dahatma's post was a pure prejucial insult-with no factual basis. I at least bothered to look up the rankings you referred to.

And, by the way, Bob went out of his way to "dig" at me first. And the simple fact is, we cannot know what profession he is in. He claims to be a physician. I have no reason to doubt that claim and I stated as such. Have I touched a nerve here or what?

bonkey

Originally posted by Gargoyle


Bonkey, my information was taken from a website. I don't keep the WHO healthcare rankings in my head.

And I think there's a big difference here. Dahatma's post was a pure prejucial insult-with no factual basis. I at least bothered to look up the rankings you referred to.

And, by the way, Bob went out of his way to "dig" at me first. And the simple fact is, we cannot know what profession he is in. He claims to be a physician. I have no real reason to doubt that claim and I stated as such. Have I touched a nerve here or what?

I'll PM you. lets drop this off the forums.

tools

Originally posted by The Corinthian


I notice that you wrote SANE in red Von :rolleyes:

I'm an Italian, and from Rome and would consider such glib statements to be illeducated at best and insulting at worst coming from an armchair Socialist with, I suspect, little experience of Lazio (Latium is what the ancient Romans called it, btw) or Italy in general.

If Von Wrote SANE in this colour would that mean he's gay?
Nobody here has experience of israel or afghanistan either. Does that mean they're unqualified to even discuss what's happening in these countries?

And since you're Italian, can you tell us with some authority whether or not the National Alliance is a neo-fascist party with its roots in Mussolini's Fascist Party and whether or not its leader referred to concentration camps as "punishment camps", the same term Joerg Haidar of Austria's Freedom Party used?

Not everyone who is opposed to the resurgence of fascism is necessarily a socialist/communist whatever. But that sort of 2 track knee jerk thinking seems to dominate these boards anyway. Question american policy and you're anti-american, question Israeli policy and you might as well have blown up a bus yourself.

The Corinthian

And since you're Italian, can you tell us with some authority whether or not the National Alliance is a neo-fascist party with its roots in Mussolini's Fascist Party and whether or not its leader referred to concentration camps as "punishment camps", the same term Joerg Haidar of Austria's Freedom Party used?

After WWII the Italian Social Movement was set up from the remnants of Mussolini's National Fascist Party. This was certainly a crypto-fascist, if not neo-fascist party, which commanded a limited support base.

The Tangentopoli period that marked the early 1990’s saw a vacuum in the centre-right as a result of the collapse of the Christian Democrats. Forza Italia grabbed the lion share of this vacuum, while during the same period the Italian Social Movement began to change/reform/take advantage of said vacuum/whatever. Another factor was electoral reform that limited the number of transferences in the system of PR (I remember voting on a ballot with over a hundred candidates), to help limit the number of small parties and the Byzantine coalitions that had a stranglehold on Government (from the end of WWII up to that point, Italy actually had fewer elections than Ireland, but an insane number of governments due to the ever shifting allegiances of the smaller parties in coalition).

The resultant party, the National Alliance party, which is actually also an amalgamation of numerous smaller centre-right parties, needless to say changed it’s policies, to the point that the neo-fascist old-guard of the Italian Social Movement, split off to found a number of neo-fascist parties including the Tricolour Flame (Fiamma Tricolore) party – Italian neo-fascist’s actually hate the National Alliance party. Politically, the National Alliance party is probably on a par with the French Gaullists, or even the British Conservatives.

As for it’s roots, no and yes. No because not all of the National Alliance party came from the old Italian Social Movement, yes because a substantial number did. Even so, would Labour be Stalinists, due to the influence of Democratic Left who, in an even prior incarnation, as the Workers Party, were was alleged to be connected to the Kremlin during the cold war? Same goes for Fianna Fail, do their roots in the old IRA make them crypto-terrorists/freedom-fighters? Sins of the father, I suppose...

As for Gianfranco Fini’s supposed comments, I don’t know, I haven’t heard them. I do know that he’s been received in Israel on at least one occasion, so I can’t imagine that he’s considered very anti-Semitic if the Israeli government let him into their country.

Not everyone who is opposed to the resurgence of fascism is necessarily a socialist/communist whatever. But that sort of 2 track knee jerk thinking seems to dominate these boards anyway. Question american policy and you're anti-american, question Israeli policy and you might as well have blown up a bus yourself.

Not everyone who is opposed to the resurgence of fascism is necessarily a socialist/communist– that’s true. But I was addressing Von, not anyone else, and from other posts he has made in the past, he certainly would appear to fall into the socialist/communist category.

Anyone can post their views to these boards, but if they’re talking BS, they should expect a roasting.

Sharkey

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
The choice always exists in countries with socialized medicine to go private- you can wait for an operation- or you can go private.

First -- this is not true. In Canada it is a criminal offense to pay for one's own healthcare.

Second -- waiting can be an absurd option for critical testing, operations and other procedures. Just put the masses on the waiting lists from hell and call it social justice.

The choice exists, the vast majority of people however, are satisfied with the, let's face it, high standards demanded of and generally provided by nationalized healthcare.

Well, most people I know are satisfied with the U.S. system.

Sharkey

oops

Sharkey

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
Then your argument (and Sharkey's by extension) has no meaning I'm afraid. Proclaiming operational success as a criticism of the WHO report's findings is a meaningless statement.

No -- it is certainly fair and meaningful to question the standards upon which the WHO judges healthcare. As we have outlined -- one can change the outcome most ratings if one changes the standards upon which things are judged.

Why is it fair to criticize a Country's healthcare when various factors are outside the capacity of the healthcare provider's reach -- such as inner-city violence and providing for illegal immigrants.

As for criticizing statistical distributions/formulas used, the bias is more than reasonable, clearly stated (having read the report) and the margins of error easily fall within the boundaries of such a comparison study. Many permutations could no doubt be produced, but only if inherently flawed distributions with p variable bias were used, this would unfairly skew the study.

Here's a hint -- any rating based on a parametric having weighted variables is intrinsically skewed. I simply say state that variables that take into account someone's view of social justice don't exactly convince me of the validity of the WHO study.

By the way, are you a physician or an epidemiologist?