The U.S. Health Care Debate

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm sorry Tuff, but that's just plain arrogant and hard-headed, and not true either.

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

We haven't really adopted the metric system, either, I walk miles and buy my meat by the pound. All the things you mentioned are a matter of outlook, most are less important than you imply as well.

France has had a similar form of government to the US for quite some time, and they formalised the balance of powers concept. That's a strike there.

You aren't the only Republic, nor the first.

You aren't the only non-interventionist country.

So, I don't think you have a point either.

Tuff is arguing that America "has a different path", the suggestion that America is destined to be different from Europe, Australasia, and Canada implies some form of divinely ordained Manifest Destiny; that it absurd.

[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.

And in that sense, the USA is special. But I think that over time it has been becoming much more similar to European nations. It started out as a nation welcoming all the poor huddled masses to a land of opportunity, now people talk about keeping the ordinary American's job from the foreigners. It started out as a nation which aimed to isolate itself from the power politics, state oppression, and imperialism seen in Europe, and yet eventually it would become notorious for policing the world. It was originally a diverse nation of many different people's, then people decided you had to be a WASP and nowadays the cheesy patriotism displayed by many Americans is becoming more similar to the nationalism seen in Europe with all the nasty connotations it has.

The US still has much of it's unique character, but it's only a matter of time before it disappears.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

And in that sense, the USA is special. But I think that over time it has been becoming much more similar to European nations. It started out as a nation welcoming all the poor huddled masses to a land of opportunity, now people talk about keeping the ordinary American's job from the foreigners. It started out as a nation which aimed to isolate itself from the power politics, state oppression, and imperialism seen in Europe, and yet eventually it would become notorious for policing the world. It was originally a diverse nation of many different people's, then people decided you had to be a WASP and nowadays the cheesy patriotism displayed by many Americans is becoming more similar to the nationalism seen in Europe with all the nasty connotations it has.

The US still has much of it's unique character, but it's only a matter of time before it disappears.

People have been talking about keeping foreigners out since at least the 1840s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_nothing_party

Yes, the oppressed as now become the oppressors. I am very sad to have to acknowledge that. Before WW2 the US was implementing a non-intervention policy but now we have in many ways yet to turn off the Cold War mentality. But that will end eventually, probably within our lifetimes.

As for the cheesy nationalism, blame the 1980s with Reagan and the New Right coming to power.

EDIT: Oh as for that last sentence, I don't think it will disappear any more then France and Britain and Germany have lost their national identity. I mean is Europe more unified and homogeneous? Yes, but I can still tell with ease which country is which when I travel through them.

[Tribesman]

I guess when the U.S. was founded by religious outcasts who were sick of the way thing were done in England,

Good point , apart from the fact that the founding fathers of the US were not religious outcasts and came from just about every flavour of christianity, apart from those who considered themselves diests and those who were anti-religion

when we decided we wanted a fully Representative government controlled solely by the people

and they didn't want a fully representative government or represent all of the people.

Perhaps you mean the founding fathers of Jamestown who were from the established British church and went there to make money as a charter company....or perhaps you mean the religious zealots who ended up in Plymouth after they were having trouble keeping employed where they were welcome in Holland so decided to get together with another bunch of British merchants with a new charter to try and make money in a new colony...them ones really screwed up as they were among the minority and were seriously in debt to the other colonists

[Idaho]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Good point , apart from the fact that the founding fathers of the US were not religious outcasts and came from just about every flavour of christianity, apart from those who considered themselves diests and those who were anti-religion

Umm, yes by the late 1770s, people from all different religions were in the colonies by that time.
I am talking about the people who originally settled what would become the different colonies. There were many different religious groups who were not looked upon kindly in England, so yes there were a variety but outcasts they were nevertheless.

and they didn't want a fully representative government or represent all of the people.

Perhaps you mean the founding fathers of Jamestown who were from the established British church and went there to make money as a charter company....or perhaps you mean the religious zealots who ended up in Plymouth after they were having trouble keeping employed where they were welcome in Holland so decided to get together with another bunch of British merchants with a new charter to try and make money in a new colony...them ones really screwed up as they were among the minority and were seriously in debt to the other colonists

Umm, if we didn't want a fully representative government, why did we rebel against England in the first place?

"Founding fathers of Jamestown" oh I see, you are a little confused over terminology. See "Founding Fathers" don't mean original settlers in America. They refer to the leadership during the war and the creators of the Constitution.

The Jamestown people went there not for money but to make a new life for themselves. To pay the company for their services they had to pay them back with the resources they gathered once settled, which didn't even work out so well considering most settlements including Jamestown had to keep all their supplies and resources harvested just to survive.

The Plymouth people left Holland because it was a different culture and lifestyle then they were used to. It wasn't for money, it was because they were used to a more agrarian lifestyle in the countryside of England while Holland was a much more compact, urban, commerce driven country.

[a completely inoffensive name]

We haven't really adopted the metric system, either, I walk miles and buy my meat by the pound. All the things you mentioned are a matter of outlook, most are less important than you imply as well.

France has had a similar form of government to the US for quite some time, and they formalised the balance of powers concept. That's a strike there.

You aren't the only Republic, nor the first.

You aren't the only non-interventionist country.

So, I don't think you have a point either.

Tuff is arguing that America "has a different path", the suggestion that America is destined to be different from Europe, Australasia, and Canada implies some form of divinely ordained Manifest Destiny; that it absurd.

I am not saying we were the first or the only one in anything, I am just saying the US has a good record of going against what most of Europe practiced at the time.

As for an absolute direction different from Europe yes I agree that is silly; there are too many ties between the two entities for America to just go off by itself and do it's own 100% American thing for all topics. But there are multiple instances of America embarking on a path some of them in favor with Europe some of them without Europe's favor where America did have a sense of destiny and did things just because it was "America's destiny". I mean you have the "Manifest Destiny" into the west that you referenced, I don't think it is unreasonable for a person to think that when given this health care debate that Europe will handle it one way and for Americans to handle it in their own unique way. Obviously there are lessons to be learned from Europe, but America always had an affinity for free markets and Capitalism in general more so then Europe, so I highly doubt that to solve it's problem America will just copy a European model but will instead to implement change in "it's own way" so to speak by solving the cost and coverage issues while attempting to preserve the free market and reduce government involvement as much as possible.