The U.S. Health Care Debate

PC Mode

Idaho 09:59 08-21-2009

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
I guess when the U.S. was founded by religious outcasts who were sick of the way thing were done in England, when we decided we wanted a fully Representative government controlled solely by the people with a balance of power between the branches instead of a monarchy with a unrepresentative Parliament, when we ~~adopted~~ attempted a policy of non intervention while Europe made alliances and began two world wars, when we tried several times and failed every time to accept and adopt the metric system and soccer don't count.

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
Well there is no doubt that the USA has a very unique history compared to the rest of Europe, and this has had both direct effects in terms of things such as economic development, and the values society holds, whether it's the work ethic, the role of the government etc.

I don't know what they teach you in your history classes - but this is a load of cobblers.

The US wasn't founded by religious outcasts. They didn't want a representative government. Non-intervention in the two world wars was a military and economic strategy, not a desire to be distant from the old world (although that was how it was sold to the public).

As for the US having a unique history - everywhere has a unique history. And the history of the US is inexorably bound up with Europe and Europeans. The work ethic is entirely 'Anglo-Saxon' and notions of the role of government are copied directly from the British.

a completely inoffensive name 01:32 08-22-2009

Originally Posted by Idaho:
I don't know what they teach you in your history classes - but this is a load of cobblers.

The US wasn't founded by religious outcasts. They didn't want a representative government. Non-intervention in the two world wars was a military and economic strategy, not a desire to be distant from the old world (although that was how it was sold to the public).

As for the US having a unique history - everywhere has a unique history. And the history of the US is inexorably bound up with Europe and Europeans. The work ethic is entirely 'Anglo-Saxon' and notions of the role of government are copied directly from the British.

Ok, well let me say how wonderful it is that a British guy knows more about our own history then us Americans who obviously have no clue over our own culture.

Not founded by religious outcasts: False. From the top of my head, Maryland was first settled by Catholics who were looked down upon in England.

Didn't want a representative government: False. We fought the British because we just wanted our voices heard in Parliament.

Non-intervention was military and economic strategy not a desire to be distant: Well, I don;t see how those are incompatible. The US certainly did not want to get involved and dragged into wars in Europe which would have drained our money and military unnecessarily, so the people had a desire to be distant so such a thing would not happen.

So your argument is that, since everyone has a unique history we should all disregard our history and just become homogeneous according to what the rest do?

Yes, the US and Europe is greatly tied to each other, no denying that.

"Notions of the role of government are copied directly from the British": British philosophers such as Hume and Locke, greatly influenced our government (there are a few key differences so that you can't say it was "directly" copied) but not from the British government.

Seamus Fermanagh 04:57 08-23-2009

Depends on where in the USA. Massachusetts Bay and Maryland could be considered as founded by religious outcasts. Can't make the same claim for any of the former French or Spanish areas. Pennsylvania took its "freedom of religion" approach fairly seriously, and did become something of a haven for Mennonites and Quakers. Most of the rest were not religious in focus and some (Virginia) were set up as profit centers pure and simple.

The founders did want a representative government, but by no means was the whole thing supposed to be direct representation. The House of Representatives were supposed to represent the people in their district, whereas the Senators were there to represent their state/state government. This WAS supposed to function as a check on too much popular sentiment -- the founders did NOT want government by referendum.

Isolationism was both policy and sentiment. Like any such policy, both "driving forces" tend to become intertwined. Certainly we took a much more active role in the Americas, emphasizing isolation from the Old World, but even there our dust-up with the Barbary pirates indicates there were economic issues that would over-ride the basic "steer clear of Europe" theme. GW really did crystalize our early isolationism with his "keep free of the entanglements of Europe" approach to foreign policy. Part of the reason he did so, however, was simple self-preservation. He didn't want some European power to gain leverage over the USA when we were just barely a going concern.

US culture draws heavily on European sources and our Legal system is, in all but one state, largely framed around English Common Law. While we have had asiatic and latin cultural influences as well, these have really only recently begun to have a lasting effect on the larger culture.

woad&fangs 05:21 08-23-2009

Good post, ACIN.

I'm going to try to read H. R. 2520 tomorrow. It's only 250 pages, so I'll try to read the whole thing. HR 2520 is Paul Ryan's (R) proposal. It will set up state based health insurance exchanges. I'm very curious about this bill.

Banquo's Ghost 08:28 08-23-2009

Since my earlier request was pointedly ignored, I have deleted the off-topic bickering. The topic of the thread is interesting to many members, and therefore it will be kept open.

There is certainly some benefit in discussing the topic within cultural context, but I feel sure there is a great deal more to be illuminated on the healthcare debate itself.

Further discussions on the history of the United States may be taken to a new thread, where respect for each other's knowledge and point of view will no doubt, be a key standard.

Any resurrection of earlier disagreements will be dealt with in the usual manner applied to the shambling dead: head-shots and deletion.

Thank you kindly.

Ariovistus Maximus 18:43 08-23-2009

So sorry Banquo!

My most humble apologies.

Henceforth, I shall not let myself get carried away.

So, the main issues that HC detractors seem to have:

1. Tort reform would accomplish the same thing without gov't interference. I believe that someone has already posted an article dealing with the other side of this issue.

2. Costs too much. Supporters argue that the short-term cost is not that much higher than the current system, and the long-term benefits are worth it.

3. Government care will be inefficient. Supporters would show where private businesses are inefficient.

4. We just generally fear big government. Well, this gets into that little cultural argument... so let's not got there.

OK, so other issues do we have?

Xiahou 01:57 08-24-2009

Originally Posted by Ariovistus Maximus:
1. Tort reform would accomplish the same thing without gov't interference. I believe that someone has already posted an article dealing with the other side of this issue.

Has anyone here argued that? Tort reform would be a positive step, but I don't think anyone could reasonably claim that it would "fix" healthcare.

Originally Posted by :
2. Costs too much. Supporters argue that the short-term cost is not that much higher than the current system, and the long-term benefits are worth it.

This one seems like a clear win for opponents. The OMB has come out and said that the proposed reforms would "bend the curve up" when it came to the growing costs of health care. It would accelerate the skyrocketing costs- not decrease them.

Despite it's lofty goals, our proposed health care reforms would accelerate costs and still not provide universal coverage. No thanks. Maybe they should start smaller- find a way to control the spiraling costs of Medicare first. Prove you can do that and then come back and talk to us about providing government health insurance available to all Americans. So far, the only cost saving measure we've seen the administration is further slashing reimbursement to health care providers for Medicare treatments. That's something like the proverbial finger in the dam compared to the huge wave of red ink from Medicare. It's great that they're trying to save money, but it's not a meaningful step compared to the massive overall burden of Medicare costs.

Ariovistus Maximus 02:00 08-24-2009

Sorry, mate. Just trying to be objective. :D

Ah, yes. That's another thing I forgot. The above points would be problems with the ideal health care system.

It would be quite a stretch to suppose that, in light of the success of recent measures, our glorious legislature will come up with anything close to the ideal.

Cash for clunkers was supposed to last... how long? And it got, what, 30% of the way to the deadline before they ran out of money?

Single Sign On provided by vBSSO