President Obama

[Edric O]

Name some names (please ignore the kitschy irony of that phrase that arises as a result of your general political beliefs).

Aw, you're not going to ask me if I'm a card-carrying member of the Communist Party? :P

Alright, on a more serious note...

I mean, I agree with a lot of the above, but... Edric, the repetition of the evils of the "capitalist/ruling" class just isn't something that I can take seriously as it is. If all the problems of the world are the direct result of the activities of this cabal of individuals, let's stop giving them such a... buzzwordy name. In fact, let's give them some real names. If these are the people making bad decisions, ruining the world, let's know who they are.

But part of the point is precisely that the world is not being ruined by any cabal of individuals. There is no conspiracy, capitalist or otherwise. Marxism is completely opposed to the numerous different kinds of worldviews that blame the world's problems on evil individuals, and imagine that replacing those evil individuals with good ones could actually fix things. No, replacing one set of bosses with another solves nothing. We have a system that rewards people for exploiting others. Therefore, people will exploit others. It's not that they are necessarily evil; most of them don't realize they're doing anything wrong, and even if they did, there is no passive solution to the problem. Even if you could persuade all the currently existing capitalists to stop being capitalists, others would take their place.

Evil is not caused by bad guys, except in rare cases. Most of the time, evil is caused by bad institutions. I can name names, but they will be the names of laws, customs, procedures and offices, not people: private property, inheritance, the circulation of money, copyright, the lack of democracy in liberal "democracy," the Office of President of the United States. I could go on...

[chatfsh]

Actually, I used America as an example precisely to defend Americans from all the nation-bashing, by pointing out that it makes no sense to bash all classes of Americans for the sins of their ruling class.

My apologies, Edric.  I misunderstood your point.

Really? Why? Even if America were the "best country in the world," what merit would you have for just happening to be born there?

Despite all that, yes, I can understand statements of the form "I like/love/support country X." But I cannot understand statements of the form "I'm proud of being born in country X," or anything that implies that a country's merits (or flaws) somehow rub off on all its citizens.

Usually when insults are being hurled at a person for being

[Wolf]

Right, Edric, and that's exactly the point I was getting at. When it comes right down to it, I believe that a majority of the world's population are, indeed, both exploiters and the exploited. I'm so glad you said there was no cabal or "great conspiracy," that's what I was afraid of, and I was totally ready to jump down your throat for it. But, no, too smart for that I suppose. In any case, I think the bad institution that you name--in this case the name is "capitalism"--really can't be changed. It's the result of individual freedoms that this exploitation exists: Person A makes a legal, seemingly-fair agreement with Person B, Person B makes agreeements with C, and so forth, and down the line this results in some people, in no way related to A, B or C, being absolutely screwed. I don't see how you can prevent the screwage without curtailing freedoms that we would otherwise cherish, further, there are good things that come about from A, B, and C all being willing to work together to produce or trade things.

[Dante]

It always struck me as silly to label any ideal as being opposed to that of a country. Communism as 'un-American,' immigration as 'anti-British,' anglophilia as 'not Fran

[Dunenewt]

First of all, my comment was not provoked by Sneakgab

[Andrew]

Yeah but whose health care system would you rather have?  Not running the USA down at all, just playing the devil's advocate.

If you have lots of money, you will get USA health care. If you are average joe who doesn't have tens of thousands of dollars to spend on premium healthcare, you will go with Canadian healthcare. Some Canadians (usually high income earners) have no problem going to States and paying for best/fastest treatment. Whereas low income/middle income deal with wait times and other stuff, but eventually they do get care. Canadian care could be much better (especially diagnoses so people can get treatment faster), but it suits most people as there is much less chance of going bankrupt when you get sick (you've paid taxes all life, so don't have to pay large medical fees upfront as USA when you do get sick).

Are we even talking about Obama anymore? Could a topic be created for all this discussion that is not specifically related to Obama and his admin?

[chatfsh]

Are we even talking about Obama anymore? Could a topic be created for all this discussion that is not specifically related to Obama and his admin?

I was just thinking the very same thing.

Yeah but whose health care system would you rather have?  Not running the USA down at all, just playing the devil's advocate.

I must agree with Andrew.  From my perspective, I

[Edric O]

I must agree with Andrew. From my perspective, I

[Edric O]

Right, Edric, and that's exactly the point I was getting at. When it comes right down to it, I believe that a majority of the world's population are, indeed, both exploiters and the exploited. I'm so glad you said there was no cabal or "great conspiracy," that's what I was afraid of, and I was totally ready to jump down your throat for it. But, no, too smart for that I suppose.

Hehe, thank you, but I can't take the credit for this insight. Marxism has always upheld the idea that society has great power over the individual (whether we like it or not), and it's a small logical step to apply this view to the actions of our enemies as well as those of our friends. Just like the poor are not poor because they're lazy, the rich are not rich because they're evil.

Also, this idea was at times the main fault line that separated us from our ideological opponents:

Socialism and communism have always been challenged (especially in continental Europe) by ideologies that claimed the problems of capitalism would go away if only the capitalists could be persuaded to be nice. The ideology known as "Christian Democracy" - that is, mainstream continental European conservatism - is a major exponent of that idea (as opposed to European liberalism, which would reply, "Problems of capitalism? What problems?"). Fascism, too, argued that capitalism's problems could be solved by getting the capitalists to be generous and nice, getting the workers to be obedient and accept their status without strikes or complaints, and getting everyone to come together in national harmony and kill some nasty foreigners.

By contrast, communism and socialism (and socialism's watered-down cousin, social democracy) hold that all problems of capitalism are inherent in the system, or at least inherent in certain aspects of the system. The more radical among us blamed the system as a whole, while the more moderate blamed parts of it - like financial markets, private ownership of utilities and natural resources, colonial empires and so on. The problems of capitalism were not caused by bad people, but by bad laws and bad organizations (often supported by good people). Attempts by right-wingers to conjure up imaginary conspiracies and blame them on specific people (or ethnic groups - let's not forget everyone's favourite scapegoat, the Jews) were nothing but diversionary tactics, smokescreens to divert public attention from the inherent flaws of the capitalist system.

If I may be so bold as to generalize, right-wingers blame problems on specific individuals or groups (if you're poor it's your fault, if the country is going down the drain there must be a socialist/liberal/Masonic/UN/Jewish conspiracy behind it), while left-wingers blame problems on the system, on social institutions (if you're poor it's because of private property/capitalism/racism/sexism/etc, if the country is going down the drain it's because of a lack of regulations/a broken financial system/laws that are too favourable to corporations, etc).

In any case, I think the bad institution that you name--in this case the name is "capitalism"--really can't be changed.

Sure it can, and quite easily, too. You want to get rid of capitalism tomorrow? Have the government declare that it will no longer enforce property rights, then sit back and enjoy the chaos as everything comes crashing down. Of course, that would be a very bad scenario, as it would annihilate the economy and probably result in rule by armed gangs. But it's a useful thought experiment in showing just how much the capitalist system depends on the visible hand of government to keep it alive. Capitalism is a game with rules, and there are men with guns who will shoot you if you try to break the rules. If you change the rules and/or remove the men with guns enforcing them, capitalism is abolished. Socialism is about changing the rules of the game. Communism is about changing the rules and removing the enforcers.

It's the result of individual freedoms that this exploitation exists: Person A makes a legal, seemingly-fair agreement with Person B, Person B makes agreeements with C, and so forth, and down the line this results in some people, in no way related to A, B or C, being absolutely screwed. I don't see how you can prevent the screwage without curtailing freedoms that we would otherwise cherish, further, there are good things that come about from A, B, and C all being willing to work together to produce or trade things.

Yes, person A makes a legal, seemingly-fair agreement with person B - where "legal" is the key word. It is up to us to determine what kinds of agreements are or are not legal. The difference between capitalism and socialism can be completely expressed as a difference in the list of agreements that are legal. Individual freedom has very little to do with it. Under capitalism, your individual freedom is limited by the law. Under socialism, your individual freedom is likewise limited by the law. The law is different, and so the limits are different... but as to which system is more restrictive of freedom, that's a matter of debate. We socialists see the freedom to own property as akin to the freedom to own slaves - an increase in the freedom of some at the expense of the freedom of others.

But I'm not sure what your argument is. That the law cannot be changed? That is plainly false. That people will refuse to follow any type of law significantly different from the one we have today? History refutes that. That the changes proposed by socialists would "curtail freedoms that you cherish?" Maybe, but then you have to explain what those freedoms are, and why they are good, and why their loss cannot be outweighed by other benefits of socialism.

[Wolf]

But I'm not sure what your argument is. That the law cannot be changed? That is plainly false. That people will refuse to follow any type of law significantly different from the one we have today? History refutes that. That the changes proposed by socialists would "curtail freedoms that you cherish?" Maybe, but then you have to explain what those freedoms are, and why they are good, and why their loss cannot be outweighed by other benefits of socialism.

My apologies! I was only very casually typing away and didn't bother to really link my points. Let me make another attempt:

However, let's not be naive when it comes to the law: certainly, it can be changed, there is a mechanism in place for it to be changed, and our society (Western Liberal) functions on the premise that the people are allowed, and indeed should, change it every now and then. But the reality of the process of change in the United States, and for the most part in Europe as well, is far from this idyllic vision. A majority of the people, sometimes, aren't enough to change the law--powerful interests are often at work--but for the purposes of our argument, let's assume that a majority of the people is what you need.

Well, then, I come back to counter your third point in that final paragraph:

That the changes proposed by socialists would "curtail freedoms that you cherish?"

It's not just me! Certainly, a majority of the world's population desires to own property, if I may phrase it in those terms. Make a Fed2k poll with the question, "Do you want the right to own property or not?" with the choices "Yes" or "No" and see what results you get. You make it sound as if I'm the sole lunatic clamoring for property rights--which you further likened to American slavery in a subtle, yet somehow frighteningly polite (you are rather like that) effort to discredit me--but the reality is patently the opposite. The rights that most people in the world cherish have to do with the rights concerning accumulation of wealth and property. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence originally read, "life, liberty and property" before we pussied out.

In order for what you're saying to make sense, at least a majority of the world's people would have to come around to your point of view. If for nothing else than to change the laws that keep the existence of private property in place. But even then, they must come together as a majority to preserve the moral righteousness of your cause: if a minority of the people inflict a change in the laws against a majority of the others, how is that anything less than tyranny-by-another-name?

Finally, getting to this:

Maybe, but then you have to explain what those freedoms are, and why they are good, and why their loss cannot be outweighed by other benefits of socialism.

Yes, and the same applies to socialism unto capitalism as well! And that's how you're going to do it! If you're going to start making this happen, Edric, you're going to have to convince people why it's righteous and good, among other things, not to own property! Do the benefits of socialism outweigh the benefits--perceived or otherwise--of property ownership? That is the question. However, as a quick and somewhat-snarky aside, I'd just like to point out that it will be rather hard to convince people they shouldn't own property when you don't not own property yourself. Christ was a compelling individual, but remember he and his disciplies sold everything but the clothes off their backs to get there.

[chatfsh]

Well, of course you are, because - how shall I put this - you're rich. In the past, you've indicated that you're a well-off professional in the banking industry, so of course the system works well for you.

Heh, if only

[Dragoon Knight]

Oh come on, Hwi.  I'm having trouble taking you seriously now.  Yes, feel free to bash the NHS for queues; go ahead and even criticise the cleanliness of some of our hospitals.  But you can't really be suggesting that the US system of paying for healthcare is superior, or even preferable?

In the U.S., it is illegal to refuse emergency healthcare to anyone, even illegal aliens.  If you required emergency care while visiting the U.S, you would receive care.

That's not something to be proud of - it's something that should be afforded to everyone, regardless of whether they're "illegal aliens" or not.  And it's completely beside the point.  What scares me about getting ill in America (or any country without a national health service) is not whether or not I'll get treatment, but the bill that I'll get landed with as I lie recovering.

Seriously, there are adverts in the UK that depict a "nightmare scenario" of getting injured abroad, only to be faced with something akin to a

[Dante]

Are we even talking about Obama anymore? Could a topic be created for all this discussion that is not specifically related to Obama and his admin?

I did say something similar already, but on reflection, Obama isn't that interesting without some discussion of the wider issues that the topic covers. How many people are replying to your mongering? How many are replying to Wolf?

The terms Democrat and Republican can encompass a range of political ideals and theories, as a result you have your moderates, conservatives, liberals and extremists within each party.  They do not break off and form their own parties because it simply isn

[Edric O]

My apologies! I was only very casually typing away and didn't bother to really link my points. Let me make another attempt:

However, let's not be naive when it comes to the law: certainly, it can be changed, there is a mechanism in place for it to be changed, and our society (Western Liberal) functions on the premise that the people are allowed, and indeed should, change it every now and then. But the reality of the process of change in the United States, and for the most part in Europe as well, is far from this idyllic vision. A majority of the people, sometimes, aren't enough to change the law--powerful interests are often at work--but for the purposes of our argument, let's assume that a majority of the people is what you need.

Agreed. Keep in mind, however, that "yes" and "no" are not the only possible stances one might take towards a proposed change in a particular law. There is also "I don't care." In fact, I strongly believe that "I don't care" is the stance that most people take most of the time. As a result, changing the law is usually a matter of getting the approval of a majority among the people who care about the issue, not an absolute majority of the population.

In the case of socialism vs. capitalism, it's true that the number of people who care is very large - much larger than usual, because it's a matter of changing the whole economic system rather than a narrow political issue. But it's still not the entire population. Most people are still apolitical.

Well, then, I come back to counter your third point in that final paragraph:  It's not just me! Certainly, a majority of the world's population desires to own property, if I may phrase it in those terms. Make a Fed2k poll with the question, "Do you want the right to own property or not?" with the choices "Yes" or "No" and see what results you get.

Now, that's not exactly fair - you want a poll asking people if they support losing something without being offered anything in exchange? Of course they'll say no. A fair poll would ask, "What do you prefer, the right to own property and start a business OR a guaranteed right to a job, the right to vote on all economic policies and maybe even elect your own boss, an income equivalent to the present-day upper middle class, and free public services including health care, old-age pension and education up to and including college for you and your children?" I bet millions of people would gladly give up the right to start a business for just some of the benefits I listed.

Oh, and that's another thing - I should have known that talking about private property without qualifiers would come back to bite me. :P When I talked about the right to own property and giving it up, I was of course not referring to things like owning household appliances, or a car, or a computer, or a toothbrush. I was talking about owning a business, or a large plot of land, or a few million dollars in the bank. In other words, I was talking about owning means of production or a nice big pile of capital. That is the kind of private ownership that socialism and communism abolish. That is what you are being asked to give up. And as Marx pointed out as far back as the Communist Manifesto, this means that most people are not actually asked to give up anything at all, since they don't own any capital.

So let me rephrase my poll question from above:

"What do you prefer, letting the current owners of capital, businesses, land or great wealth keep their property, OR a guaranteed right to a job, the right to vote on all economic policies and maybe even elect your own boss, an income equivalent to the present-day upper middle class, and free public services including health care, old-age pension and education up to and including college for you and your children?"

But I suppose you could argue that the question is loaded in favour of socialism because it describes the benefits in greater detail than the costs. Alright then, here's a shorter version that is rather inaccurate but still manages to express the spirit of the deal:

"Can we take rich people's stuff and give it to you?"

Much of the politics of wealthy elites over the past 200 years has been concerned with making sure that the people never get to vote on this question. After all, who said that greed has to work against socialism?

You make it sound as if I'm the sole lunatic clamoring for property rights--which you further likened to American slavery in a subtle, yet somehow frighteningly polite (you are rather like that) effort to discredit me--but the reality is patently the opposite. The rights that most people in the world cherish have to do with the rights concerning accumulation of wealth and property.

You overestimate most people's ideological commitment. I'd say a great deal of attachment to the present system is due simply to the inertia of the status quo - better the devil you know than the one you don't, that sort of thing. A lot of people would rather not take the risk of radical change. That is always true, no matter if the status quo is capitalism, socialism, or anything else.

And that is precisely why radical change is rare. But nevertheless, sometimes it does happen.

Also, while I do sometimes try to politely discredit my opponents in an argument ( ;) ), this was not one of those times. I was being perfectly serious. Private property rights (over capital) automatically imply the exploitation of some people by others. Slavery is an extreme form of such exploitation, whereas capitalist wage labour is a milder form. But the point is that they are both fundamentally the same kind of thing; one is just more extreme than the other. And in some cases the distinction is even blurrier than that - some sweatshop workers have it worse than some privileged slaves, for example.

Indeed, the Declaration of Independence originally read, "life, liberty and property" before we pussied out.

It also read, "all men are created equal," though in fact it meant all white men (and certainly not women!), so I'm very happy that present-day America has moved away from the original intent of the Declaration and the Constitution.

In order for what you're saying to make sense, at least a majority of the world's people would have to come around to your point of view. If for nothing else than to change the laws that keep the existence of private property in place. But even then, they must come together as a majority to preserve the moral righteousness of your cause: if a minority of the people inflict a change in the laws against a majority of the others, how is that anything less than tyranny-by-another-name?

Yes, you are correct. I would only add two points:

1. Most people are apolitical, so it's only necessary to persuade a majority of those who care. This might theoretically be done by persuading people to switch sides from the pro-capitalist to the pro-socialist camp, but a much more effective strategy is to get some of those apoliticals to join the socialist camp, enlarging the overall number of people who care and giving us a majority in this new, larger group. That is what I hope we will be able to do.

2. Once a new socialist status quo has been established, the natural inertia of society and the aversion to radical change will work in our favour, just as much as they currently work against us.

Finally, getting to this:

Yes, and the same applies to socialism unto capitalism as well! And that's how you're going to do it! If you're going to start making this happen, Edric, you're going to have to convince people why it's righteous and good, among other things, not to own property! Do the benefits of socialism outweigh the benefits--perceived or otherwise--of property ownership? That is the question.

Yes, of course that is the question, and I listed some of the advantages of socialism above: a guaranteed right to a job (i.e. no unemployment), the right to vote on all economic policies and maybe even elect your own boss, an egalitarian income equivalent to the present-day upper middle class, free public services including health care, old-age pension and education... And there are also others: a guaranteed right to a home, the abolition of the business cycle (i.e. no more recessions), a huge reduction in crime due to the high degree of economic equality, an incentive structure that guides technological development towards finding ways to reduce the need for human labour (i.e. ever-increasing free time for everyone), and the potential to solve environmental problems very quickly if the people desire it - or for that matter, the potential to quickly direct the necessary amount of resources towards any large-scale project that the people support, from saving the planet to space exploration to building a bridge across Gibraltar.

However, as a quick and somewhat-snarky aside, I'd just like to point out that it will be rather hard to convince people they shouldn't own property when you don't not own property yourself. Christ was a compelling individual, but remember he and his disciplies sold everything but the clothes off their backs to get there.

As I said above, by "not owning property" I mean not owning capital or means of production. And I don't own any.

[chatfsh]

Oh come on, Hwi.  I'm having trouble taking you seriously now. .

 

Oh my, now who

[Dragoon Knight]

Oh my, now who

[chatfsh]

I never said that our system was perfect either.  I did say that I prefer the American healthcare system over what the NHS has to offer.  Naturally, something should be done to see to the needs of the small minority of people who are uninsured.  Since our system works just fine, for most part, Obama should have included something in the federal budget to cover the 15%, the same way that the government covers the medical costs for illegal immigrants.  This, in my opinion, is preferable to nationalizing our entire healthcare system. 

So, as far as your NHS model goes, thanks but no thanks. :)

Edit:

Furthermore, it was never my intention to laud our system over yours.  I was merely answering the question presented by Dunenewt.

Yeah but whose health care system would you rather have?  Not running the USA down at all, just playing the devil's advocate.

[Dragoon Knight]

So, regarding the unaddressed points.  Answers?  Yes?  No?  I'll just leave these here.

Please, feel free to address these points at your convenience:

That's not something to be proud of - it's something that should be afforded to everyone, regardless of whether they're "illegal aliens" or not.  And it's completely beside the point.  What scares me about getting ill in America (or any country without a national health service) is not whether or not I'll get treatment, but the bill that I'll get landed with as I lie recovering.

Seriously, there are adverts in the UK that depict a "nightmare scenario" of getting injured abroad, only to be faced with something akin to a

[chatfsh]

Frankly, I am rather proud

[Wolf]

Some scattered replies to the 2, perhaps 2.5 conversations floating around this thread:

1. I wasn't aware that I was a monger, though, I've made a conscious effort to stop being one. I was, originally, extremely pissed off at what I felt was pretty arrogant/condescending behavior regarding the net intelligence of my countrymen, and thought Dragoon a snot. I then realized that maybe Dragoon had a point and I shouldn't be so defensive. Then I discovered that the difference between the median US IQ and the median UK IQ was only 2 points, and now the Dragoon-scale has been re-adjusted back to "snot," but not nearly so severely as it was the first time. 2 points? Give me a break. Anything less than a difference of 5 on a 100-point scale isn't even considered statistically significant in mathematical terms (Intro to Stats anyone?).

2. Yeah, I figured that's what you meant, capital as opposed to private property in the more literal sense, but since you jumped on me for being too casual... I thought I'd return the favor. In general, though, I really don't know what to tell you. I fear that the abuses that capitalism perpetrates will only find other, perhaps more interesting ways to perpetrate themselves under a socialist regime. In the beginning, I talked about the idea of Person A making a legal agreement with Person B, and that led to a discussion about private property. You talked about redefining what constitutes a "legal" deal, in this case, that individuals should no longer be allowed to control capital. What first struck me about this response was that you found a clever way to say essentially the same thing as, "well, make society less free." There's no possible redefinition of the status quo that does not contain an essential limitation of the scope of Man's behaviors. Throwing goodies at them notwithstanding. But, even then... who shall control capital? Is it shared? If so, doesn't that strike you as an inherently less efficient model for economic activity? I want to talk about other things, but before we do, I want to say that I've always believed that communism can only work in a pre-industrial setting... or not at all, and whatever post-industrial environment you might call communism would merely be some form of capitalism distorted by the application of some sort of extreme set of conditions.

As you said, greed need not work solely against the system, who's to say that greed need ever work for it? Really, by encouraging the poor to steal from the rich, all you're really doing is altering the portrait of who is rich--not abolising richness in itself. This latter notion is what I believe the goal of communism to be, the abolition of "rich" as a state, idea, pursuit, goal, dream, endeavor, or as anything, for that matter. Are you familiar with the more philosophical defintion of genocide? The one that states that genocide is not merely an attempt at wiping out All Members of X, but rather, an attempt at making the statement "I am X" meaningless. Really, it seems to me that communism or socialism or whatever you might call it would easily succeed given that genocide against "richness" be accomplished. But I don' think there's any nonviolent way to accomplish that. Further, there are those who would define such an act--even in its theoretical sense, simply by putting pen to paper--as an inherent act of violence. In order for communism to succeed, you must kill richness as an idea, and, well... we've seen how spectacularly poor we are at killing ideas.

2.5. Regarding health care. People from the world over--Japan, Saudi Arabia, North Africa, Eastern Europe--trip over themselves to get to the United States for health care. I don't think I'd be mistaken in saying that, when it comes to the medical profession, including medical research and pharmaceutical production, the United States is second to none. It accomplished this not by having the state mismanage healthcare the same way it would a nationalized rail serive (Hi, British Rail!) or Social Security (We're abolishing you in 20 years or we're hosed!), but rather by making the medical profession in the US one where merit was extraordinarily well-rewarded and where failure was immediately, and severely punished--look at a brief history of malpractice and law in the States. Incidentally, I remember in my Intro to Econ, way, way back when, the state was considered an "inherently poorer manager" than the private sector. I know nothing about NHS except that, when I lived in London, my British professors merely told me to pray I never got sick. I know nothing about a potential Obama plan for a similar scheme in the states, only that all of my friends in the medical profession--doctors, nurses, med students--are all highly, highly against it, fearing that it might upset the delicate balance of health care in the country that leads to highly-trained, highly-competent professionals that causes people (who are much closer to Europe than the United States) to spend tens of thousands travelling halfway across the world just to see them. I think this a closed case.

[Dragoon Knight]

There

[Wolf]

See, this is what I mean. Different studies return different results, but obviously, the original study you cited has to be The Right One.

Also, snot, at least in the US, is synonymous with "brat." Not that I'm calling you a brat outright--I just think that at this point, enough ambiguity has been demonstrated to exist in the data that it isn't worth pursuing the point regarding differences in national intelligence. Since you know that it's an issue that can be offensive, it really either ought to be dropped or pursued differently. I don't talk about underage alcoholism or teenage pregnancy in Scotland, so why don't you let the US/intelligence thing go? Especially since underage alcoholism and teenage pregnancy are observable events, whereas even the IQ scale itself is under fire for proving to be insufficiently reliable in the past few decades?

Yeah. I am proud of our litigous society. I'm sorry that a system whereby people are rewarded for success and punished for failure is one you cannot condone: I personally feel that it is truly just and righteous, and I only wish that people were more consistently rewarded for success and punished for failure. That doesn't change the fact that, except for you, most Britons I met bashed the NHS--especially dental care. It also doesn't change the fact that this point of yours:

And regarding your point about medical excellence in the United States; yes, you have some excellent medical practitioners and research.  So does the UK.  So does India.  This isn't something that's exclusively in your favour.

...kind of ignores a key difference between health care in the US and health care in the UK and India. Sure, you have some excellent practitioners and you have some excellent research, but it is a peculiar phenomenon in the United States that wealthy foreigners travel here to seek medical attention. That's the point I was making; it's something I see all the time. It's dependable. It's highly consistent. Sure, it's expensive, but you get what you pay for. This report, http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_whitman11_06-11-08_S7ADJRH_v8.39cc7fe.html, which criticzes evaluations of national health sevices, admits that the US gets a lower ranking overall not because of the quality of its healthcare, but regarding the equality. Fully a quarter of the WHO's rating system is based on the equality of health care distribution, which, obviously, the US probably gets no credit for whatsoever. Additionally (since we never read the evidence of our opponents), this has to be said about the "quality" of US Health Care: "Americans generally believe that whatever the other problems with the U.S. health-care system, its standards of care are high. In the details of the rankings there is evidence to support this: The

[Dragoon Knight]

See, this is what I mean. Different studies return different results, but obviously, the original study you cited has to be The Right One.

Not at all.  My point was to counter the notion that there is only "2 points" of difference; that for every gleaming report, there is a damning one.  The reality is likely somewhere in between.  No need for name-calling, outright or otherwise. :P

And I was the one who first brought up teen pregnancy and alcoholism in Scotland / the UK.  Criticise away, it's something that needs to be dealt with and there's really no excuse for it.  I'm not going to defend the indefensible.

Yeah. I am proud of our litigous society. I'm sorry that a system whereby people are rewarded for success and punished for failure is one you cannot condone: I personally feel that it is truly just and righteous, and I only wish that people were more consistently rewarded for success and punished for failure.

There's a difference between being punished for failure and being punished for not meeting the expectations of your patients.  The amount of law suits that get filed for malpractice in the US is astounding, and I have to say that it's a testament to the fortitude of your medical practitioners that they're not afraid to go to work each day.

EDIT: The ironic thing is, the more petty malpractice suits there are, the more malpractice insurance will cost, which will only increase the cost of health care, excluding even more patients from care.

I firmly believe that if a doctor does something wrong, he or she should be held accountable professionally.  He or she should not, however, be in fear of bankruptcy or losing their career over the smallest of infractions.

That doesn't change the fact that, except for you, most Britons I met bashed the NHS--especially dental care.

Nearly everyone in Britain bashes the NHS at some point.  Whether it's having to race to call your local Health Centre at 8am just to get an appointment in some areas, or at the other end of the spectrum, having to plan about 1 week in advance if you're going to have the flu.

But did you ask those same people if they'd prefer the US system?  If they'd prefer to shell out for insurance that may or may not cover them in case of illness or injury?

I can assure you that nearly everyone I know will bash the NHS at some point, but here's the important part; every single one of them prefers the NHS to the alternatives.  Sure, some might optionally choose to get covered by someone like BUPA for private care, but it's as a convenience or assurance of personalised care.  Bypasses the queues, if you like... but an NHS Hospital won't turn them away.

The

[Wolf]

1. For every gleaming report, there's a damning one. The reality is somewhere in between. Fair enough, though, I'd say that what you've said here doesn't perfectly match up with what you were saying earlier, I'll let it go.

2. Yeah. That absolutely is a good point: the more malpractice suits there are, the higher up insurance costs go, the more expensive health care is. There's probably a point where added litigation fails to improve health care proportional to its cost, however I will say that some, indeed, substantial litigation is necessary to make sure that health care is held to a high standard. The profession is so profitable that it needs to be observed and regulated with a careful eye. I think this is a perfectly reasonable solution.

3. Wait. So because they didn't say whether they'd prefer the UK system over the US one, I'm forced to assume that they do? I'm sorry, but if we're continuing in the spirit of fairness to the "middle ground" that you so graciously established in Point 1, I'm going to have to say that because they didn't tell me which system they'd prefer, I'm going to say that some people will prefer the UK one, some people will prefer the US one, but I have no data with which to make groundless, dubious and potentially-inflammatory points. All I heard was a lot of people telling me that it was crap, and if I do get sick, I shouldn't expect the same quality from the US health care that I was used to. Gee. Yeah, that's absolutely sufficent data with which to assume that the UK system is superior.

4. A "crucial" part, crucial not from the standpoint of the actual quality of care. I was hoping you'd prove me wrong and actually read the article, but this makes it clear that you didn't, but even that's okay--you're probably at work or something. I work in the evenings, it's fantastic. That last line,

Yes, the US can be number 1 in the world if you overlook a crucial part of the WHO report.  Let's do that, shall we?

is ridiculous, because the article clearly states that it is only because of the rating that gauges "equality of care," which is itself dubious, and seemingly disproportionately weighted that the US system isn't number one. That is not a crucial part of the report for the purposes of our argument, because I've acknowledged that the US has less equitable care! What I'm trying to prove, and what I've successfully proved, is that, ignoring the issue of equality of care, the US does indeed possess the highest quality of care.

Now, I don't want to give you too much reason to think that you're right, because then you'll become impossible to work with, however, you are right in saying that, even if US health care is 18% better in terms of quality (I'll take this quote

Yes, cancer care (for example) might be 18% better,

as an admission of that) it's 100% worse for those who can't afford it. That's the only problem US health care has with respect to European health care. In terms of quality, training of professionals, access to equipment, consistency of high-quality care... the US is better in every measureable respect. Sound fair to you? At this point we'll only be saying the same thing, only with different word charge.

[Edric O]

Three quick points:

...kind of ignores a key difference between health care in the US and health care in the UK and India. Sure, you have some excellent practitioners and you have some excellent research, but it is a peculiar phenomenon in the United States that wealthy foreigners travel here to seek medical attention.

1. Yes, precisely. Wealthy foreigners. I don't think anyone ever denied that the US is the best place to get health care for the rich. It's the health care for everyone else that we're concerned about.

2. In addition, countries that have universal health care don't usually extend full free coverage to foreigners who don't pay taxes to their governments. They only extend limited coverage, such as treatment in case of emergency (and an emergency is by definition something you don't plan for, so of course people won't fly to other countries to get emergency care). This is only logical: Universal health care is tax-funded, so in general it should only be fully available to a country's own citizens and legal residents. This goes a long way to explain why patients from across the world don't flock to the NHS for health care. The British government cannot fund the entire world's health care needs.

I'm sorry that a system whereby people are rewarded for success and punished for failure is one you cannot condone: I personally feel that it is truly just and righteous.

Except that success is defined as "whatever gets you rewarded," and failure is defined as "whatever gets you punished." So yes, you have a wonderful system that rewards people for doing things that get them rewarded. How just and righteous...