Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 17, 2008 17:49:20 GMT -4
Well, I would bitch too if I had lost my sense of taste because of my dentist. I'm sure that if I did some searching I would find similar complaints coming from Americans... because American doctors screw up from time to time too. And the dentist will have lost his license and the victim would be a rich woman from the malpractice payments. True. Much of the Western world really has nothing to complain about compared to the health care they get in somewhere like Sudan. Which is why I started on this health care topic in the first place - to point out that the U.S. system is not bad at all.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 17, 2008 19:03:17 GMT -4
I guess ultimately it depends on why you think the US was attacked on 9/11 and why are the US and its allies being attacked in Iraq is (was) it because....? 1) “...they hate us for our freedoms” 2) …“they” want to take over the world 3) …“they” are seriously pissed off by US/UK etc policies in the region especially regarding Israel and Saudi Arabia. False Trichotomy, as Jason pointed out, all 3 are reasons, and they likely have others. I suggest studying the topic deeper, Perfect Soldiers, The Looming Tower, and Ghost Wars are a good place to start if you want to understand their reasons. Firstly it's "Ze aland." Secondly, They Have attacked Australia. Remember Bali 2002? 88 Australians died, nearly half the total death toll. Also Australia's embassy in Indonesia was bombed in 2004, both attacks funded by AQ, so don't even try and push the claim that they haven't attacked countries other than the US and UK, they have. There is a reason they have mainly concentrated on the US though. The US is seen as the lynchpin of the west, it is the main power and it is the one that supports the governments they want to topple and replace. They believe that the reason they can't gain in roads into the Muslim countries is because the US supports the "corrupt" governments and that by chasing off the US these governments will become vulnerable and able to be toppled, thus achieving their first goal. They did. Go and learn the history. After Afghanistan OBL started out trying to rid Southern Yemen of its communist government. In 1990 he wanted to go after Saddam but was rejected, and instead the Saudis turned to the US. After that OBL targeted the Saudi Royal Family trying to have them removed (resulting in his being banished and then eventually his citizenship being revoked.) He then moved to Sudan when he helped finance and support a number of attempts to overthrow the Egyptian, Algerian, and several other Governments of Muslim African States. They failed due to those governments being supported by the US. He decided then that the only way to overthrow those governments and re-establish a Islamic Empire was to first rid the Muslim world of the US's influence and their support for what he considers corrupt and evil Governments. Which has me wondering why you don't seem to realise that both are factors. But in your "being realistic" you are missing two thirds of the picture. AQ is not just attacking the US because of its foreign policies. Even if the US pulled out of the Middle East and stopped supporting Israel they will still be a target. Sooner or later the Islamist Fundamentalists will come after them, the question is how much strength they would have when they did. You have to realise that they won't stop fighting until the world is under Islam. They believe that this is the only way to "save" humanity. They believe that this is what God has ordered them to do. How do you fight that sort of belief? What it will do is give the fundamentalists a victory more powerful that anything we can imagine. You have to realise how they think, how the Islamic world thinks. They are very different to the western world; such a victory over the US would create a wave of support for the fundamentalists that the moderates will be overwhelmed. We have seen it before, after the Soviet loss in Afghanistan. Those Arabs that had been trained in Afghanistan went home (well those that could, some countries just wouldn't let them back in) and started causing trouble, they had young men and women flocking to their banner on the call of victory against the Soviets and felt they could do the same to their own Governments. The only thing that held the Islamic world in check and prevented it from falling then was the US's presence and support for those besieged Governments. If the US runs away and leaves the Islamic governments to their own devices without support this time, who exactly will prevent them falling to the new wave of extremism that will sweep over the region if the US is seen to be defeated by Islam? While I agree that it is doing these things, do you really think that AQ donations will dry up if they won? Heck they went from being destitute and living on scraps to being able to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars just on the back of the USS Cole Bombing, what do you think that a victory for them in Iraq would do to their coffers? As to popularity, how popular do you think it would make the US if people believed that they were unable to finish what they start? That they run away when it gets a bit tough? What message does that send to Iran, North Korea, China? How long will it take for those sorts of groups and regimes to claim that the US is all bark and no bite, that it doesn't have the balls to follow up on any threats and so it can be ignored? I know that the US never asked for the job, but it's currently the World Policeman, and what use is a Policeman that everyone thinks is unwilling to act? Do you really want the US to be looked at as the same sort of joke as the UN? Iraq is not exactly a stable country, far less than Lebanon is. I'd suggest you have a serious lack of imagination then. Until the Taliban, Afghanistan was considered to be a lost cause with no one group being able to take control. It didn't work out that way either. I believe you are seriously underestimating the enemy. Thinking like that lead to 9/11 in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jun 18, 2008 18:09:21 GMT -4
As I understand it, most American bitching about health care is not as much about the health care per se as about the fact that they don't have any. Ameicans have tremendous access to health care. What we don't have in nationalized health payment monopsony. That is we do not have a single payer system. We should not conflate access to medical care with the insurance system.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 18, 2008 21:23:41 GMT -4
There are quite a lot of Americans who cannot pay for basic care. I think that's a big problem. Yes, they can go to emergency rooms, but that isn't a solution to the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 18, 2008 21:39:31 GMT -4
There are quite a lot of Americans who cannot pay for basic care. I think that's a big problem. Yes, they can go to emergency rooms, but that isn't a solution to the problem. How do lower income Americans afford to have babies? How much would that cost? One of the problems with universal health care up here is that people go to the doctor or the hospital with the most minor of complaints. Like a cough, or sore throat, or heaven forbid, a paper cut. I've actually gone to emergency room at the hospital, and left again after seeing how many people were there and realized that the wait would be for about nine hours. And it was my daughter who was injured - she fell and bit all the way through her skin below her lip. I took her home, she went to sleep and everything healed fine with no scarring. The quickest way to get help in emergency is to say you have chest pains. They'll look after you real quick. But of course, then you have to spend eight hours there while they take blood and run you through all kinds of tests. Turned out I had a panic attack. But the second and third time I had an irregular heart beat.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Jun 19, 2008 11:50:59 GMT -4
Isn't that what GPs are for?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 19, 2008 12:26:52 GMT -4
How do lower income Americans afford to have babies? How much would that cost? Personally, I went on state assistance. Then again, it was another one of those points in my life when I had no income. However, the answer is "emergency rooms." It's illegal for them to refuse service to someone actually in labour.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 19, 2008 14:35:28 GMT -4
Isn't that what GPs are for? When your heart acts up (or you think it does) going to a regular doctor is not the option to take. It may take days to get an appointment, and their office is not equipped to monitor your heart, blood pressure etc., and they don't have the personel to look after you. Also, I need to get put to sleep* and 'zapped' to get my heart back to normal. An irregular heartbeat can start to cause permanent damage if it has not settled down after three hours or so. My heartbeat was going back and forth between 120 and 180 beats per minute. Around 60 is normal. We do have emergency 'clinics' here that can look after most things wrong with you, but the wait there is also long. I went to the hospital with my daughter because it was a block away from my house. I was going to take her to a clinic then, but my sister in law told me that her son did the same thing to himself and everything healed fine. Another point, although we have universal health care, many people do not have a family doctor. Depending on where you live, up to forty percent of the people may not have a regular family doctor - which means the hospital or clinic is the only option to take. Of course some places will be a lot better than others in this regard. I'm lucky to have a family doctor, I just hope she never retires. * I asked the doctor why they have to put me to sleep and he said 'because it is so painful' to be awake when they apply the electric shocks. I took his word on it...
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jun 19, 2008 20:28:32 GMT -4
There are quite a lot of Americans who cannot pay for basic care. I think that's a big problem. Yes, they can go to emergency rooms, but that isn't a solution to the problem.
Since the price of health care is too high for some people, it sounds like there is not enough health care available to take care of everybody. I have heard through an acquaintance of the complaint by a doctor that after having to deal with getting payments from Medicare, she was sorry she ever became a doctor. Making health care payments the responsibility of a governmental bureaucracy, then, likely won't create more health care.
The challenge, as it is in any economic scenario is efficiency, or bang-for-the-buck, or getting the most from the available resources. I just cannot bring myself to look upon the government and see efficiency. I don't see how any scheme of taxation and handouts can create more for society. All that could come of such a plan is a queue-based distribution scheme where those who wait in line the longest may get access to the scarce resource of health care.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 20, 2008 11:11:54 GMT -4
The prices are not high because of scarcity - they are high because of the way health insurance works now. Costs were allowed to rise out of control largely because they were not transparent to the consumer. A person would go to see the Doctor, he would pay a small deductible and his insurance would pay the rest. Because everyone was paying smaller amounts - deductibles and insurance premiums that they didn't even see because their employer took them out of their paycheck before they got it - no one was objecting to the high price of treatment - insurance companies paid those. Doctors also had to charge more because of litigation - their insurance against malpractice gave them higher and higher premiums to protect themselves. The result was out of control medical costs and health insurance premiums that slowly creeped upwards until they began becoming unaffordable for lower-income individuals. Many health insurance programs today are trying to cut costs by having "high deductible" plans. Basically you pay the full cost for routine visits and the insurance kicks in only when you have major expenses. I heartily agree that more government involvement is probably not the best answer.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jun 20, 2008 13:49:55 GMT -4
I guess ultimately it depends on why you think the US was attacked on 9/11 and why are the US and its allies being attacked in Iraq is (was) it because....? 1) “...they hate us for our freedoms” 2) …“they” want to take over the world 3) …“they” are seriously pissed off by US/UK etc policies in the region especially regarding Israel and Saudi Arabia. The answer is "all of the above." No doubt there are other reasons for the attack as well, and one should not expect completely rational reasons for their actions. Because those countries are not perceived as a cultural threat, or not nearly as much as the U.S. is. It is U.S.-produced media and companies that are pervasive in much of the world. It is U.S. films that are watched, Coca-Cola and McDonalds that penetrates new markets, and U.S. music that is listened to. Our freedoms are the most visible. When they state their motives for various attacks the policies of the targeted nation are first and foremost. I’ve never seen them say they attacked US targets because of their resentment of Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Madonna or Hollywood. Odd if it were the case they haven’t targeted soft targets associated with these and other American cultural exports in their home countries. A couple of suicide bombings would certainly be bad for business. However they have the advantage of being indigenous locals basically indistinguishable from everyone around them. Egypt, Yemen and Saudi Arabia among others don’t seem very good at suppressing such groups. But this is a bit moot since as Jason pointed out I was wrong and they have targeted such countries. The ultimate questions are: 1) are Middle Eastern countries in danger of being taken over by AQ or similar groups? 2) will the US disengaging from Iraq lead to (as PW suggested) or increase the risk of this happening? The evidence I’ve seen so far suggests not. I was referring specifically to “REVISING their policy towards” Israel and Saudi Arabia. In any case Bush’s “drastic revision” has had catastrophic consequences. If I though continued US presence there could result in the country becoming stabilized I would support it. AQ’s bragging rights would be tempered by the fact they were defeated by the US in Afghanistan. The point I was making is that it is unlikely AQ will be able to take over other Middle Eastern countries. Bad as the Taliban were (are) the US invasion of Iraq has led to far more human suffering than they did, hundreds of thousands dead, millions displaced etc. I agree it would be a disaster but I don’t see continued US presence leading to a better outcome unless we want to stay there indefinitely. I can’t imagine AQ gaining such a quasi-state making them much more of a threat than they are now.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jun 20, 2008 14:07:10 GMT -4
I guess ultimately it depends on why you think the US was attacked on 9/11 and why are the US and its allies being attacked in Iraq is (was) it because....? 1) “...they hate us for our freedoms” 2) …“they” want to take over the world 3) …“they” are seriously pissed off by US/UK etc policies in the region especially regarding Israel and Saudi Arabia. False Trichotomy, as Jason pointed out, all 3 are reasons, and they likely have others. I suggest studying the topic deeper, Perfect Soldiers, The Looming Tower, and Ghost Wars are a good place to start if you want to understand their reasons. The evidence still suggests to me that the latter is the predominant one. I will look for the books you suggested when I visit to the US in July I should have limited that to before 9/11 or the invasion of Afghanistan. They gave their reasons for those attacks and it was due policies and actions of the Australian and other western governments regarding Muslim countries/populations. I never saw “we hate them for their freedoms" or "to help establish the worlwide caliphate" among the stated reasons. www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2003/20030210_bali_confessions/target_bali.htm That’s basically my argument; they targeted the US because they don’t like the policies in pursues in the Middle East especially with regards to Israel and Saudi Arabia. I think that, unlike Jason, you agree that invading Iraq in the first place was a colossal error. The question is how to best rectify it. I think slowly pulling out is the least disastrous policy. Presumably the US will be able to keep them out of power in other countries. Thus far their allies have only been able to take over a country that was in a state of total caos. They were powerful in Sudan but only as long as the government there supported them. I stand corrected. However their failure in the past suggests they are unlikely to succeed outside central Iraq in the future. Because they talk about these in general, not too differently from Evangelical groups saying they want to covert the world to Christianity or American and British etc politicians/pundits going on about spreading freedom/democracy/capitalism. In all the statements I’ve seen where they spelled out why they carried out specific attacks, they cite actions, that they objected to, taken by the targeted countries. To make a long story short I don’t think disengaging from Iraq will put neighboring countries at risk of Al-Qaeda take over or bring terrorism to the US (I know you didn’t say that but others have) and it would free up resources for Afghanistan. I never suggested the US should “run away and leave the Islamic governments to their own devices without support”, pulling out of Iraq would free recourses to help pro-western states especially Afghanistan. As you’ve pointed out this policy has been successful in the past. I believe the US should pressure: Israel to curtail its overly heavy handed approach, expansion of settlements and abuse of Arabs in areas under its control. And Saudi Arabia to open up its political process, In regard to your 1st question, no - but it’s hard to say what the net effect would be. On one hand they would get more support for have defeated the US on the other they would lose their principle cause celebre. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12913317/ Are you suggesting that military options should be on the table for those countries? Isn´t the Iraq disaster bad enough? Now thanks to being bogged down and unsuccessful there the US credibly threaten those countries. Were you joking about the US never asking to be “the World Policeman”? That has something it has sought since the Spanish-American War if not earlier. I never meant to suggest it was. I was countering your suggestion other Middle Eastern countries could or would come under AQ control if we left Iraq. I don’t remember anyone saying no one group would be able to take over Afghanistan. The situation isn’t very analogous. - The Taliban had a lot of help from the Pakistanis I’ve seen no evidence AQ is getting support from a neighboring state.
- The Shi’a, who are the vast majority in the south, will presumably resist domination by Sunnis than Afghans did the Taliban. They are also almost certainly going to continue get aid from Iran. I can’t see Iran allowing AQ to control Shi’a areas.
- The Kurdish north has been largely autonomous since the 1st Gulf War, if Saddam couldn’t exercise effective control their it is unlikely AQ will
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jun 20, 2008 14:16:37 GMT -4
I have heard through an acquaintance of the complaint by a doctor that after having to deal with getting payments from Medicare, she was sorry she ever became a doctor. Making health care payments the responsibility of a governmental bureaucracy, then, likely won't create more health care. Independent of ewhether you are right or wrong a 2nd hand anecdote isn't much evidence of anything. FWIW I've heard doctors complain about getting payments from HMO's and insurence companies as well. As someome else pointed out despite the US spending a higher percentage of GDP on health than most (if not all) other countries a large percentage of the population do not have access to adequate health care.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 20, 2008 15:05:12 GMT -4
When they state their motives for various attacks the policies of the targeted nation are first and foremost. I’ve never seen them say they attacked US targets because of their resentment of Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Madonna or Hollywood. Odd if it were the case they haven’t targeted soft targets associated with these and other American cultural exports in their home countries. A couple of suicide bombings would certainly be bad for business. Their stated reasons and their actual motives may not be the same thing. And I believe they have attacked American cultural exports in their own countries. Actually Phantomwolf made that point. Iran already has been. Iraq certainly is in danger of it. A U.S. victory in Iraq will be a strong measure against it happening in Iraq and will influence other nations in the area as well. Of course we can't know what catastrophic consequences would have resulted from Bush ignoring Iraq or failing to invade Afghanistan. Why do you see this as impossible? All recent indications are that a great deal of progress is being made towards stabilization since the surge began. The Iraqi's own security forces are becoming more effective and violence is down. Al Qaeda can argue that both sides concentrated greater effort in Iraq and so it represents a greater victory than Afghanistan would have been. And again, we have no way of knowing the amount of suffering Saddam and the Taliban would have continued to inflict on the people in Iraq and Afghanistan if we had not acted, or what Al Qaeda would have been doing if it hadn't been concentrating its efforts in Iraq. Is there anything wrong with stationing troop there idefinitely, if the Iraqis are willing? We've had troops in Germany and Japan since we invaded them more than sixty years ago now, with no real end to our tenancy in sight, and it has been a largely beneficial relationship to both nations and to the U.S.. Just because they were able to due horrible things with just 19 men doesn't mean they won't find better ways to do worse damage with more resources.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jun 22, 2008 10:54:55 GMT -4
Many health insurance programs today are trying to cut costs by having "high deductible" plans. Basically you pay the full cost for routine visits and the insurance kicks in only when you have major expenses.
To put my money where my mouth is, that is the plan I am currently enrolled in. I pay $130 a month for a $5000-deductible insurance plan. (Lower deductibles are available, but cost more.) That covers any costly procedures like surgery, etc. In conjunction with that plan, I have a Health Savings Account in which I can save up to $2950 per year income tax free. I pay for doctor visits, prescriptions, and so on out of the HSA with a debit card or check.
An HSA is like an IRA, but for health care instead of retirement savings. The money is mine to keep. It accumulates and builds interest as long as my medical costs don't consistently deplete the account. If I was able to start such an account when I was 25, chances are, with typical medical costs for a male, by my 60's I could have accumulated $150,000 from the savings and investment earnings. What would have been nice then, is to have paid the insurance premium out of the HSA. That's not allowed, yet, however. And I am not sure if HSA's will be improved or even survive under a Democratic administration.
I have to take a high blood pressure medication. When I switched from a regular insurance plan to an HSA, for the first time I had to pay the actual prescription price out of my pocket. It's $800 per year! That's crazy. Now I have an incentive to switch to generics when they become available, or work with my doctor to lower the dosage since my blood pressure has been really good the past few years. My doctor hinted at doing such before, but there never has been an incentive since it didn't (apparently) cost me anything extra for the higher dosage. Needless to say, I will continue jogging and trying to eat healthy as long as it knocks a few points off the pressure. That's--literally--money in the bank.
|
|