felt embarrassed to be American

[Bombila]

You're certainly not all an embarassment abroad.

Several days after 9/11, my husband and I met, while vacationing in our own province, a middle aged couple from Iowa. I offered my condolences and we struck up a conversation. They were lovely people, sad and bewildered of course, but not angry or blustering. And in spite of it all, took the time to say how pretty they thought the area was, and how it seemed everyone cared for their property, even small lots, and had gardens and rockeries and shrubs in flower. Americans like those people are welcomed anywhere.

 

[Catherineanne]

Haha, you are right. At least you guys admitted you had an empire.

Had it then, still have it, BL. Or have you not noticed that half the world speaks English, and 95% of the other half wishes it did? The only people on earth who do not want to speak English are, of course, the French, and they want everyone to speak French.

And where our language goes, our culture goes. Of course, countries mature and grow away from their parent, and go their own way. But the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

I can almost understand why a Muslim or two might just think we are of the Devil.

God help us all.

I think you will find that those same people who claim to believe that the US of the devil, would give their eye teeth to get a US passport.

In other words, their vitriol is of the green eyed kind.

 

[BabyLutheran]

I think we are the most bipolar people on earth, the most charitable while also the most selfish. Does that make any sense to you guys? I can't figure out how to say what I mean.

 

[Catherineanne]

The people who respond in sections of newspapers do not represent the entire population but they come pretty darn close. And yes, it is pretty embarrassing. Try traveling to other countries and watching what some of our fellow Americans do, how they act or what they say if you REALLY want to be embarrassed!

Wandering around London US tourists can easy be distinguished, of course. First from their accent, second from their dress sense (although this is improving), and thirdly, by their confused way of trying to find where on earth they are. But none of that is cause for embarrassment.

If you want true embarrassment, you need look no further than Brits abroad.

 

[BabyLutheran]

I hear the Germans are pretty obnoxious too.

I actually spent 10 days in France on my only trip to Europe and thought they were the nicest people I had ever met. I had absolutely zero hostile reactions. It all comes down to how you treat others.

 

[Catherineanne]

I hear the Germans are pretty obnoxious too.

I actually spent 10 days in France on my only trip to Europe and thought they were the nicest people I had ever met. I had absolutely zero hostile reactions. It all comes down to how you treat others.

The French are, indeed, lovely people. Dodgy President, nice people.

 

[MattLangley]

Saying something sucks is useless and pointless. It shows your opinion not any objective reality or even an attempt at it. We all have opinions, two people can look at the same thing and say it's great and it sucks at the same time, which proves that people thinking something sucks in and of itself is useless.

Christians can be some of the most heartless people I have ever known... they'll praise Jesus who helped the poor and didn't condemn them, then they'll stab Jesus in the back by condemning the poor. They'll throw out what Jesus says in situations they choose to. Not all Christians are like that but many of those statements you talk about are from those types of Christians.

 

[wiggsfly]

One thing I've learned in life is that any culture will treat you with respect as long as you are willing to return that respect. The US doesn't believe they need to respect anyone and that is part of the problems.

 

[Im_A]

A few days back, when Yahoo was running stories about the health care bill winding its way through Congress, I logged in an posted in the "Buzz Up" section, where people can make comments on the story.

I was frankly embarrassed at the vitriol coming from 90% of the people on there. Made me felt bad that I live in the US, to be honest.

Sampling of general comments being made:

"Health care is a privilege, not a right."

"The uninsured number is more like 20 million, not 47 million."

"If we sent all the illegal Mexicans back home, the problem would be solved."

"If it weren't for the lazy people wanting something for nothing, the problem would go away."

"I'll be damn if I am going to pay for someone else's health care."

"Ask people in countries with socialized medicine, and they will tell you how horrible it is."

"Socialized medicine rations health care too much."

"Obama is a communist for even proposing this. He is trying to take over our lives."

I thought we were a supposedly Christian nation...even if you disagree with the bill itself, these arguments for the most part, are just distressing to me. I could almost feel the selfishness and hatred towards the unfortunate.

I'm not convinced yet of socialized health care yet, even though the idea of it, I am very sympathetic to it, I'm just not convinced of the realisticness of this type of idea. Just a topic that I have to keep my mind around from all angles before I come to my own opinion, and with my now realizing libertarian type of politics that I have realized is the area that I agree the most with, I am not comfortable with the government being involved with my health care, but this is one of those issues that its hard to be blatantly one way or another.

With that said, minus the legit arguments, I agree with you. Some of their arguments are down right vile and disgusting.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I think we are the most bipolar people on earth, the most charitable while also the most selfish. Does that make any sense to you guys? I can't figure out how to say what I mean.

There's definitely some truth to that.

But I'm not getting the impression you "get" what my problem with socialized health care is. It isn't that I have a problem with sharing, and it isn't that I feel those who would benefit from it aren't deserving. And it isn't especially that I'm worried about being overtaxed. Likely, since I'm in the lower income brackets, I'd probably get more than I'd pay. In fact, since I can't afford health insurance at all at present, I certainly would personally benefit from it.

No, my issue is of a different nature entirely: I don't trust the government. I don't trust their competence to run such a thing without screwing it up. And I don't trust their good intentions. I see the push for socialized health care as part of a larger pattern of pushing for control over every aspect of our lives, and I don't like that pattern one bit. I would be a lot less nervous about it if I lived in a smaller country like New Zealand. Try as they might, their much smaller government (in absolute size, not as a percentage) isn't able to achieve the same levels of bureaucratic inertia that ours is capable of. And their PM has no delusions about being the leader of the world.

 

[BabyLutheran]

Izdaari, another problem with our gov't running stuff is we typically have the lower echelon of brain power going into government service.

In France, for example, it is considered prestigious, and a great honor, to work in the government sector. Only the top echelon university grads even have a chance to get decent jobs available

Contrast that with US, where you get a government job only if you can't get a private sector job.

I am probably over-generalizing, but that's how I see it.

 

[Catherineanne]

Izdaari, another problem with our gov't running stuff is we typically have the lower echelon of brain power going into government service.

In France, for example, it is considered prestigious, and a great honor, to work in the government sector. Only the top echelon university grads even have a chance to get decent jobs available

Contrast that with US, where you get a government job only if you can't get a private sector job.

I am probably over-generalizing, but that's how I see it.

In the UK, Civil Service jobs are also highly regarded. Entry is very difficult indeed, and becomes in effect the nearest thing left in this country to a job for life, because civil servants do not change with a change of administration. Civil servants are supposed to be apolitical, like the Queen, and just do as they are told, regardless of their own opinions. In practice, of course, they are only human, and can be as leaky as an old boat. But in theory, the consistency of the civil service means that change of government can be achieved very smoothly and quickly.

Same with the judiciary. They do not change after an election.

This is partly why the day after an election the losing PM moves out of Downing Street, and the new one moves in. No messing around with six months handover; it is done.

 

[Catherineanne]

Try as they might, their much smaller government (in absolute size, not as a percentage) isn't able to achieve the same levels of bureaucratic inertia that ours is capable of. And their PM has no delusions about being the leader of the world.

Those are, indeed, major considerations. The level of bureaucracy in the NHS is bad enough, and the UK is tiny in relation to the US.

Gordon Brown may, however, be delusional. The jury is still out on that one.

 

[Bombila]

...

No, my issue is of a different nature entirely: I don't trust the government. I don't trust their competence to run such a thing without screwing it up. And I don't trust their good intentions. I see the push for socialized health care as part of a larger pattern of pushing for control over every aspect of our lives, and I don't like that pattern one bit. I would be a lot less nervous about it if I lived in a smaller country like New Zealand. Try as they might, their much smaller government (in absolute size, not as a percentage) isn't able to achieve the same levels of bureaucratic inertia that ours is capable of. And their PM has no delusions about being the leader of the world.

But Izdaari, it seems self-defeating to reject something useful the government may handle (poorly or not) while accepting all the deletorious programs the same government handles. You trust them with the biggest most expensive world-killer military in the world, but not to run hospitals?

You live in a democratic republic. Granted there is a huge established bureaucracy, but one major point of elected representatives is to impose the will of the people on that bureaucracy. If Americans must fear their government, then how are you better off than living under a dictator? How has your system of governance gone so wrong?

It amazes me that so many Americans (not necessarily you, Izdaari) will proudly and loudly insist the US is the best country in the world and out the other side of their mouths admit to being regularly wronged and intimidated by their own government.

 

[AngelusSax]

But Izdaari, it seems self-defeating to reject something useful the government may handle (poorly or not) while accepting all the deletorious programs the same government handles. You trust them with the biggest most expensive world-killer military in the world, but not to run hospitals?

Consitutionally, the government is supposed to handle military matters. They are not supposed to run hospitals. My feeling (just a gut feeling) is that the government can do well what it was originally given the power to do. The more things it takes on, the more it either stretches itself to the point of original responsibilities suffering, or it must grow and get more powerful than it was intended to be. And the more power a government has over its people, the more the people need to fear their government. We were set up so the government should fear us (not that we would randomly overthrow it for the hek of it).

One of the big fears of this proposed health care reform is this:
The number of people insured will go up (a good thing in and of itself), but the number of doctors who can see patients will not (which counters the good done by insuring more people), resulting in the government rationing healthcare (a bad thing), potentiall to the point of (as a kind-of worst case scenario):
Sorry Mrs. Johnson, but you're 80, and someone who is 35 gets to go in front of you for that [insert medical procedure here]. You've had a long life, they still have productive years to pay taxes, so their life is worth more.

Not that the government would say someone's life was worth more, but it would be the message sent to someone who was denied treatment because the spot was needed by someone else still paying taxes into the system at a higher rate.

It amazes me that so many Americans (not necessarily you, Izdaari) will proudly and loudly insist the US is the best country in the world and out the other side of their mouths admit to being regularly wronged and intimidated by their own government.

Well, this reminds me of a quote by... oh, I want to say Churchill, but I don't know for sure. "Nobody said democracy is the best form of government. Indeed, it is the worst form of government, except for all the other types that have been tried."

Kinda the same attitude with Americans and their government, I suppose. IT's the worst... except for everyone else's...

Which is a way of saying "we may have a lot of good qualities, and even more than anywhere else we can think of, but there's a lot we need to fix too."

 

[Bombila]

Except, AngelusSax, it's a fact that the American government already spends more per capita on health care than do governments which oversee socialized health care programs. Your health care is already randomly rationed, by virtue of those unable to pay for it not getting it. Your system favours the wealthy, who get great care, and the very poor, who probably can get adequate care. Everyone in between experiences economic rationing.

Why would the number of doctors not go up with demand? It's a lucrative field - trust me, our doctors are not suffering, judging by the big houses, brand new vehicles, etc. - and people will want to enter it.

There seems to be an excess of paranoia about socialized medicine, is what I mean. It's hard for me to imagine it being worse than it currently is, in terms of fairness.

I kinda think y'all need to take a closer look at your system of government, because I strongly suspect it is not better than several other democratic systems. The Canadian government, if in minority as it usually is, as an imperfect example, can be brought down at any time by a non-confidence vote by the other parties in the House, and an election will be called. There's no waiting through four years of miserable governance to get another kick at the can. This alone keeps governments very conscious of what the people want.

 

[AngelusSax]

Except, AngelusSax, it's a fact that the American government already spends more per capita on health care than do governments which oversee socialized health care programs. Your health care is already randomly rationed, by virtue of those unable to pay for it not getting it. Your system favours the wealthy, who get great care, and the very poor, who probably can get adequate care. Everyone in between experiences economic rationing.

I am aware of this, and I'm sorry if I made it sound like I was against this proposal because of the fears I mentioned. It's just that those are fears shared by many who oppose it, no matter how legitimate or half-true or irrational they are.

I kinda think y'all need to take a closer look at your system of government, because I strongly suspect it is not better than several other democratic systems. The Canadian government, if in minority as it usually is, as an imperfect example, can be brought down at any time by a non-confidence vote by the other parties in the House, and an election will be called. There's no waiting through four years of miserable governance to get another kick at the can. This alone keeps governments very conscious of what the people want.

There are benefits to this, and we saw california have a special election not too long ago... and unfortunately, they got who they got to replace the former Governor.

The downside is, if the government does do something that is unpopular, even though it may actually be right (sometimes people want things that will hurt them overall), they could get removed for protection people against their own short-sightedness.

So... no system is perfect. No government is perfect. Ours isn't, and I know that.

Why would the number of doctors not go up with demand? It's a lucrative field - trust me, our doctors are not suffering, judging by the big houses, brand new vehicles, etc. - and people will want to enter it.

Well, there's demand now. People already are rationed and wait in long lines, as you have correctly stated. Why aren't more entering now? Why would they in the future?

I suspect one of the biggest things we could do to reform our health care, right now, is to do something about lawsuits which drive up malpractice insurance premiums. There are legitimate lawsuits, don't get me wrong, but there's a lot of frivolous ones as well, not to mention no cap on non-quantitative damages (e.g. 500 thousand dollars in medical expenses, fine, but (and this is only for this post, not an actual stat from any case) 230 million for emotional damage?). I can see awarding someone who wins their case their medical expenses back plus some for the hassle, but my point is I think juries often give TOO much in the "plus some" category.

The only message that gets sent is "make sure your insurance is paid up", which then sends a message of its own to the insurance companies, "raise prices, you'll need it to pay out for any one, let alone 2 or more, jury verdicts in favor of platiffs."

 

[Bombila]

You've an important point about lawsuits. Lawsuits in Canada are way less common and the payouts are normally a great deal smaller.

On government: what you had in California was a different process, I believe: it was a recall. We don't do recalls as such. We have four mainstream parties (federally) and several smaller ones. One of the two biggest parties usually ends up elected, but because the other two mainstream parties have a significant voter base, they almost always are able to align with either the party in power or the secondary Opposition party. So the government in power, unless it has a majority of seats, which is to say more than all the other parties combined (which rarely happens anymore), must have at least one other mainstream party onside in order to pass any significant legislation. Those parties must also consider whether their supporting or not supporting the government in power will come back to bite them in the event of an election.

It ain't perfect but it does provide a system of check and balance that Canadians have found workable most of the time. It is not uncommon for Canadians to vote strategically in an election in order to ensure a minority government, in fact.

 

[BabyLutheran]

Sometimes I think it would be a fairly good gamble to do without the insurance and sink the money into my IRA and pay my mortgage off quicker. Then I figure, if I do it, we will have a really bad medical problem and lose everything we own.

 

[AzA]

Izdaari, another problem with our gov't running stuff is we typically have the lower echelon of brain power going into government service.

In France, for example, it is considered prestigious, and a great honor, to work in the government sector. Only the top echelon university grads even have a chance to get decent jobs available

Contrast that with US, where you get a government job only if you can't get a private sector job.

I am probably over-generalizing, but that's how I see it.

Yes, you are over-generalizing.

I recently spent a couple of months working with central government folks, and I have never been in an environment with a higher concentration of young, smart, and overworked people... and I usually work on a university campus with young, smart, and overworked people.

There are doofuses in every human class and category. Based on my experience, I would say the percentage of doofuses might in fact be lower than average in central government.

That is not to say some government workers might not be rude, arrogant, and consumed with their own effluvia... but I've met store clerks who also fit that profile.

Population qualifications may also vary in district offices and in local government -- but in DC, your restaurant wait staff is likely to have graduated from GMU or John Hopkins with a JD and an MPA and just be waiting for a legislative post to open up just so they can have a shot at opening some dude's mail. For long hours. And minimal pay.

So.... I object.