high cost and long wait times resulting from EPA, OSHA and various state agency regulations (not to mention fighting Greenpeace and other hippies)
State regulations have a huge cost on business. I would bet money that the GP is NOT in favor of repealing all of these regulations. Nonetheless the point stands that regulations can actually do more damage when our pollution is just shipped abroad to places like China where laws are either nonexistent or ignored.
Mining does not by definition require there to be toxic chemical spills and pollution. The kind of obstructionism that groups like Greenpeace (see the GP's post) put up absolutely has an impact on developments.
Lastly, for a very different take from yours on the issue of government regulation and the ultimate impact of laws and policy on the environment, I would recommend: "FABLES OF THE CUYAHOGA: RECONSTRUCTING A HISTORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION" (http://law.case.edu/faculty/adler_jonathan/publications/fables_of_the_cuyahoga.pdf)
If you had been alive before Nixon signed the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water act you wouldn't be so anti-environment. When I grew up in Cahokia, you could not drive through Sauget past the Monsanto plant with your windows down, even in hundred degree heat. It didn't just stink, it burned your lungs. Nowdays it's rare that you even smell anything.
What's with the straw man? I don't think ANYBODY would argue against regulating such things. However, regulating toxic chemicals and noxious vapors is very different than deciding (e.g.) you can't build a wind farm because some birds are going to die.
Yes, because I really want to get cancer from drinking water that is polluted by the mine that gathers these elements, or die in a mine collapse because the mine owner is too cheep to provide for safety bunkers.
What year do you think this is, 1900? Mining is not perfectly safe. It never ever will be. In 2008 in the US, 15 people died in coal mine accidents. In 2007 the number was 21. In 2007, China -- the worst in the world -- had 4746 deaths.
In 2007 the US produced 1,147 million short tons of coal. China produced 2,795.
By comparison the only European countries with significant coal production are Germany and Poland. Germany produces about 1/5 of the US, and Poland produces even less (this is true presently and in 2007). Numbers for the European countries are hard to find, but accidents are not. Barely 6 months ago (2009) at least 17 miners died in Poland. Google Ruda Soska if you're unfamiliar with it.
Am I missing anything here? Are the very few remaining European coal mines really that different from the US or Canada?
It is why gas is taxed to high in Europe
Is THAT why gas is taxed so highly in Europe?
It is why coal miners in the US die in a collapse, and the European coal miners spend 3-4 days in an emergency shelter waiting to be dug out.
Best pie crust I've ever made had lard in it...homemade (homerendered?) lard even..
But I think lard and high saturated fats remain a VERY hard sell for most people. There is a lard rehabilitation movement, but I've yet to see it make much progress.
Trans fats do occur naturally in milk and beef (the most prominent examples). Admittedly at smaller levels than from hydrogenated oils, but it's still there.
Secondly, my understanding is that even the 0g trans fats per seving Crisco formulations (etc) still have what add up to substantial amounts of trans fats. Are any of the vegetable shortenings REALLY trans fat free? Unless people go back to using lard, we're still going to be eating trans fats, just thankfully less than we did just 5 years ago.
Cite your sources for those numbers. I can honestly say none of my dozens of hardcore gamer friends and acquaintances use a Mac. Not sure where this statistic of yours is coming from.
I doubt the statistic as well, but your "dozens of friends" don't make statistics...!
Piracy exists on Mac OS, but there a far fewer games for it than PC, so once more games are released to Mac you'll see a steady rise of piracy as well.
One only needs to look at a site like MacBB to see how much piracy there is on mac. (ie, a lot)
Wow, it's been awhile since anybody has argued mouse superiority! (see e.g. http://www.apple.com/magicmouse/). In essence though, you're right. Mac hardware can run Windows, and generic PC hardware can (often) run OSX.
Apple hasn't sold a powerpc computer in roughly 4 years (2006). A decent number of programs no longer support powerpc at all (and this has been a growing problem for several years--I think it was the 2008 olympics that required Silverlight to stream, which didn't officially run on PowerPC). I think it's 100% safe to say there will be no powerpc support for Steam.
I think the point is that while in general "bugs per lines of code" is not a terribly useful metric, bugs per generated/assembly/etc lines per code is even less useful.
I don't have a clue what the best reform would be. I like (a) the idea of exchanges that anybody can join, (b) insurance companies being able to offer plans across state lines, (c) TORT REFORM, (d) unlinking job and healthcare--let companies pay a certain amount towards whatever healthcare plan you have...if you want a better one, you can pay more, if not, you pay less. If you change jobs, keep your plan, etc. Something like a FSA that companies pay into for each employee. Should lower admin overhead too. (e) a government plan for the uninsurable.
The plan as it was now seems the worst of all worlds. I would have rather had a single payer system than this ridiculous bastardized insurance mandate.
I'll be perfectly honest that I have not followed the ACTA issue closely at all. Are you just assuming that the Democrats will be against and Republicans are for it, or are you going on actual statements? Let's not forget that Senator Disney was himself a democrat, and that the lines of party/ideological purity often seem fairly blurred in cases involving IP, international trade and treaties, etc.
My reply was a direct response to "What about the consumers right to determine what they can do with their property?". Most people aren't really consistent when they say that!
Didn't you hear? "Freedom fries" was just a prank we pulled on Canada to make Canadians seem silly when they got worked into a lather over it. That's all.
Don't worry, we still have Canadian bacon...its place on our menus is safe.
(and just for the record, since this is turning out to be an interesting cultural exchange, freedom fries WAS a joke. I've never run into anybody or ny restaurant that took it seriously.)
Thanks for the link, I've read reports of the study before (though not seen the study itself directly).
A few points. As a previous poster noted, 1 unnecessary death is too many. Any truly preventable deaths should be lamented and the causes fixed. I have a lot of problems with many of the healthcare reform proposals being looked at now, and think there are actually many good things about our healthcare system now, but I am not one who would deny that no changes are needed (as one specific I think the concept of healthcare being linked to job and insurance companies being prevented from national/cross-state plans are disasters).
Having said that, roughly 2.5 million people die in the US every year. Even if each of those 45,000 people cited above really would have lived had they had health insurance, that is still only 1.8% of all deaths. You are never going to be able to prevent every unnecessary death. With a full government run healthcare plan, I don't know how much that 1.8% would drop. Surely not to 0?
The problem, as I see it, with the study is how certain diseases--like diabetes are treated. If people have diabetes, and get no treatment, AND wanted treatment but couldn't get it, that's a problem. I don't know if that's a legitimate issue or not. I spent some time in Hyde Park, Chicago. It's an enclave of rich/upper middle class (and also many dirt poor) people in the overwhelmingly poor and black south side of Chicago. Near a park where I lived was a diabetes clinic. Most days with good weather, many of the patients would be wheeled (amputees) or shuffled out to the park. It was awful to see. Diabetes is in many cases 100% preventable, and even when it it's caught, is almost always manageable. The fact that these people had lost toes, feet, legs, hands, etc to the disease is a travesty. I doubt that merely having insurance would have made much of a difference in most cases. What these people needed was more than just insurance, and I don't see how any current proposals change that.
Your other post regarding Veterans...the VA is a system to provide healthcare to veterans. Almost all veterans are eligible. It has aspects of single payer, current American insurance, and yes, rationing of care, alongs with means test. In short, the VA is what many people want to emulate and extend to others. ~shrug~
Please, in the future, when you rant about "indoctrination," think about yourself -- you don't know facts and admit that all you think you know you learned from a movie. I don't mind the rest of what you wrote--alleged differences between Canadians and US, your opinions of capitalism, etc--but the indoctrination bit comes across as just a bit silly!
No amount of talk will prove you're cancer is covered by your insurance company. Up here, I'd just get treated and hope to live.
That, quite frankly, is a stupid thing to say, and disappointing given that until now you seemed like you were actually trying to have a considerate discussion? Believe or not, (fight your indoctrination?) most Americans do NOT get dumped by their insurance if they get sick. In my little statistically insignificant life, I've never heard of anyone I've met, family members, etc being dumped. And I've known plenty of family members and others who have had cancer, Hodgkins, etc.
You're right that in Canada--just like in the US--you'd get treated for cancer and hope to live. Might have a slightly higher chance of making it if you were living down south;)
I'm willing to bet that, in the US, that all depends on perspective. If you're fairly well off or well employed, the US healthcare system must look fantastic. Cutting edge procedures. Top-notch diagnostics. Shorter waiting periods for non-critical procedures. But if you're on the bubble (ie, in the middle class), or under- or unemployed, I'm willing to bet you feel quite a bit different.
This is perhaps true to some extent. But should we be surprised that the rich have it better than others? Even in Canada the well off have the option of jetting off to America for whatever surgery or treatment they need...to be a truly equalized health care playing field, you would have to forbid such things. Additionally, I honestly don't know satisfaction rates with Medicare/Medicaid, but I'll try to do some googling to find out.
The things everybody does agree on is that healthcare is expensive. Nobody disagrees with that.
Additionally, I suspect political ideology plays a *huge* part. Many Americans have a remarkable distrust of government compared to your average Canadian. Down south, the general belief is that the government can do nothing right, and that anything it gets its paws on will be utterly destroyed in the following trainwreck that would ensue. Meanwhile, Canadians in general seem to feel that the government *can* run some programs effectively, that it should do so where appropriate, and that healthcare is one of those areas.
Ideology does most certainly play a role. There is remarkably little trust in many government institutions. Well earned distrust even!
Lastly, I think, in general, Americans are far more individualistic. Compared to the US, I think more Canadians (not all, just more) feel that social justice is important, and that social programs are a path toward social justice, while Americans feel that government can't be trusted to run these programs and, even for those that believe in the idea of social justice, that charity is the better approach.
Now you're getting dodgy here. For instance in another post I showed how much more Americans give per capita in private philanthropy than other comparable countries (including Canada). You can be a strong believer in social justice while at the same time being an adamant believer that the government is neither the appropriate nor the best agent to affect social justice.
Of course, as a Canadian, I obviously believe we're right and they're wrong.;) Though, to be fair, the American system of government seems to be royally screwed up... given how incredibly powerful corporations and special interests are in the political system, it might not be so crazy to believe that the US government can't do anything right.
Most people around the world aren't too thrilled with their governments. I suspect the differences are not as great as you think.
Should be noted that US trust in govt and business institutions is historically low right now. 20 years ago--even 10 years ago--was a different picture. So, according to this poll--a historic low of 3 out of 10 Americans trust the government, while 5 out of 10 Canadians trust the government. I do think that down the line Canadians are more accepting of government authority than many parts of America are.
Just not right yet, I wish - truly wish - that people would stop dying down there because you don't have social health care for the now.
You've done an excellent job at tackling topics from Ayn Rand, to "nanogoo," to alleged evil corporations polluting without consequence, to indoctrination, to capitalism...and all in response to my simple question of what things about the American health care system don't you like... but all of your theories presuppose so many things (and none of which you've been able to back up, despite my asking you). Let me put it another way--you don't get to keep claiming that corporations are giving people cancer with no consequence to themselves without being able to back it up with the smallest amount of data. Talk about the irony of this, while then talking about how much you know about indoctrination? Introspection time!
So let me pose a simple question--how many people down here are dying because we don't have socialized medicine?
The way I perceive it through my education is that in general the ideals United States of America's citizens are indoctrinated with are rugged individualism
I would disagree with this. I would say that for many years--and even today--the ideal of the American way is an ideal of being self-sufficient, accountability for your own actions, etc. It's more of an ideal in some parts of the country than others (See eg Alaska;). Having said that, it's an ideal. I don't think ANY Americans would tell someone if they can't pay for healthcare they need that they should rot. Not even the anti-government right wingers. ESPECIALLY not the anti-government right wingers perhaps, as conservative christians tend to give to charity in large numbers. As an example, check out the wikipedia page on private (and public) philanthropy:
The US has an incredibly high rate of private philanthropy compared to the Britain, Canada, France, Germany, etc. This is in no way in conflict with the ideal of being self-sufficient.
You should not be sentenced to death because a corportation dumped chemical waste into your backyard because it was the cheapest thing to do
Again, this part of your statement just seems like a strawman. Lawsuits are fought over corporations and companies that ILLEGALLY have dumped waste chemicals that cause sickness. People do not generally go ignored. Yes, it's a tragedy when it happens, but it's against the law, and corporations pay out their nose when they are caught, even for dumping decades ago.
Speaking for myself, mainly the idea that if I developed a catastrophic illness, my insurer might decide to drop coverage, and then I might be forced to go bankrupt in order to, you know, keep living.
Does that really happen?
But, to each his own. I live in a place that echos my ideals, and so I'm happy and glad I don't live in the US. Many in the US feel the same about their system... though I'm incapable of understanding why.
That is one of the most interesting things to me about this conversation. Look at this article for instance--easily half the responses were "move somewhere else!" instead of "buy insurance" (eg). Of the "move somewhere else" responses, many have been Canadians, saying they were sick of their healthcare being unfairly maligned, and that they literally hate the cruel, unethical, murderous (etc) US healthcare system. Then queue the critics of government run healthcare, etc who slander the other systems as removing the dignity of life, needless deaths, etc.
Kinda makes one take another look at nationalism, etc in the modern world! Hatred of other systems--and even others!--is still rife.
And FWIW, I do 100% agree with you that the US is not for everybody, nor is Canada, France, wherever. I personally wish the US was for less people, as I could stand there being fewer people around--would make traffic better;)
I feel horror that I may be living somewhere where Government regulations regarding pollution may be lax and through no fault of my own I get cancer.
Well, that really doesn't have anything to do with healthcare...perhaps other aspects of the government, though I think you would be very hard presseed to cite any exames of "regulations...[that] may be lax" causing cancer ? I get the feeling from your message that what you feel horror about isn't necessarily the US healthcare system, but the US system in general?
And then through no fault of my own, say a depressed economy, I am forced to die because I can't pay for the treatments
Strawmen are not a valid form of argument. In response to the question of "what do you feel horror about?" am I safe to paraphrase your answer to "People don't get treated if they can't pay"? Well, as far as I can tell, that's really not true at all. The plural of anecdote is of course not data, but a woman I work with has been intimitately involved in such a case over the last 2 years. Her son and daughter-in-law were drunk driving (without seatbelts even) and got in a bad wreck when they went off the road. The son is STILL having surgeries almost three years later despite having no insurance. A pregnant mother is never going to be turned away from a hospital if she can't pay, etc. Go into any emergency room--it's written right on the wall.
Now that is a problem I DO have--emergency rooms as general care providers. That's something I feel horror about in the US healthcare system.
Phrasing it differently, do Americans have humanity towards others?
Oh, so it's AMERICANS you feel horror about, not the American system like I surmised earlier?:-p
Because if they do then you will see healthcare that doesn't ignore the situations that surround real lives.
I can't quite parse what you mean by the last sentence?
You know, I'm not going to defend those cretinous bullies at all, but I will add that there are more than just physical bullies. Kids can be jerks. Whether they're smart, dumb, geek, jock, whatever. I've seen some pretty cruel behavior amongst geeks. Perhaps not so overt as a "give me your lunch money now!" bully, but bullying just the same.
IMHO it's part of figuring out human society. Geeks/nerds/other may like to pretend that they're beyond the social ladder and the BS of others, but it's there in other ways. By the time one is 20, it should be about all figured out (hah)
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. The GP said:
high cost and long wait times resulting from EPA, OSHA and various state agency regulations (not to mention fighting Greenpeace and other hippies)
State regulations have a huge cost on business. I would bet money that the GP is NOT in favor of repealing all of these regulations. Nonetheless the point stands that regulations can actually do more damage when our pollution is just shipped abroad to places like China where laws are either nonexistent or ignored.
Mining does not by definition require there to be toxic chemical spills and pollution. The kind of obstructionism that groups like Greenpeace (see the GP's post) put up absolutely has an impact on developments.
Lastly, for a very different take from yours on the issue of government regulation and the ultimate impact of laws and policy on the environment, I would recommend: "FABLES OF THE CUYAHOGA: RECONSTRUCTING A HISTORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION" (http://law.case.edu/faculty/adler_jonathan/publications/fables_of_the_cuyahoga.pdf)
If you had been alive before Nixon signed the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water act you wouldn't be so anti-environment. When I grew up in Cahokia, you could not drive through Sauget past the Monsanto plant with your windows down, even in hundred degree heat. It didn't just stink, it burned your lungs. Nowdays it's rare that you even smell anything.
What's with the straw man? I don't think ANYBODY would argue against regulating such things. However, regulating toxic chemicals and noxious vapors is very different than deciding (e.g.) you can't build a wind farm because some birds are going to die.
Yes, because I really want to get cancer from drinking water that is polluted by the mine that gathers these elements, or die in a mine collapse because the mine owner is too cheep to provide for safety bunkers.
What year do you think this is, 1900? Mining is not perfectly safe. It never ever will be. In 2008 in the US, 15 people died in coal mine accidents. In 2007 the number was 21. In 2007, China -- the worst in the world -- had 4746 deaths.
In 2007 the US produced 1,147 million short tons of coal. China produced 2,795.
By comparison the only European countries with significant coal production are Germany and Poland. Germany produces about 1/5 of the US, and Poland produces even less (this is true presently and in 2007). Numbers for the European countries are hard to find, but accidents are not. Barely 6 months ago (2009) at least 17 miners died in Poland. Google Ruda Soska if you're unfamiliar with it.
Am I missing anything here? Are the very few remaining European coal mines really that different from the US or Canada?
It is why gas is taxed to high in Europe
Is THAT why gas is taxed so highly in Europe?
It is why coal miners in the US die in a collapse, and the European coal miners spend 3-4 days in an emergency shelter waiting to be dug out.
See/rebut above?
Best pie crust I've ever made had lard in it...homemade (homerendered?) lard even..
But I think lard and high saturated fats remain a VERY hard sell for most people. There is a lard rehabilitation movement, but I've yet to see it make much progress.
Foodies are douches, be a gourmand instead :-P
Trans fats do occur naturally in milk and beef (the most prominent examples). Admittedly at smaller levels than from hydrogenated oils, but it's still there.
Secondly, my understanding is that even the 0g trans fats per seving Crisco formulations (etc) still have what add up to substantial amounts of trans fats. Are any of the vegetable shortenings REALLY trans fat free? Unless people go back to using lard, we're still going to be eating trans fats, just thankfully less than we did just 5 years ago.
Cite your sources for those numbers. I can honestly say none of my dozens of hardcore gamer friends and acquaintances use a Mac. Not sure where this statistic of yours is coming from.
I doubt the statistic as well, but your "dozens of friends" don't make statistics...!
Piracy exists on Mac OS, but there a far fewer games for it than PC, so once more games are released to Mac you'll see a steady rise of piracy as well.
One only needs to look at a site like MacBB to see how much piracy there is on mac. (ie, a lot)
Wow, it's been awhile since anybody has argued mouse superiority! (see e.g. http://www.apple.com/magicmouse/). In essence though, you're right. Mac hardware can run Windows, and generic PC hardware can (often) run OSX.
The one button days are pretty far gone.
Apple hasn't sold a powerpc computer in roughly 4 years (2006). A decent number of programs no longer support powerpc at all (and this has been a growing problem for several years--I think it was the 2008 olympics that required Silverlight to stream, which didn't officially run on PowerPC). I think it's 100% safe to say there will be no powerpc support for Steam.
I think the point is that while in general "bugs per lines of code" is not a terribly useful metric, bugs per generated/assembly/etc lines per code is even less useful.
It seems like a scare tactic.
I don't have a clue what the best reform would be. I like (a) the idea of exchanges that anybody can join, (b) insurance companies being able to offer plans across state lines, (c) TORT REFORM, (d) unlinking job and healthcare--let companies pay a certain amount towards whatever healthcare plan you have...if you want a better one, you can pay more, if not, you pay less. If you change jobs, keep your plan, etc. Something like a FSA that companies pay into for each employee. Should lower admin overhead too. (e) a government plan for the uninsurable.
The plan as it was now seems the worst of all worlds. I would have rather had a single payer system than this ridiculous bastardized insurance mandate.
Cheers as well
I'll be perfectly honest that I have not followed the ACTA issue closely at all. Are you just assuming that the Democrats will be against and Republicans are for it, or are you going on actual statements? Let's not forget that Senator Disney was himself a democrat, and that the lines of party/ideological purity often seem fairly blurred in cases involving IP, international trade and treaties, etc.
Stupid mods :p
My reply was a direct response to "What about the consumers right to determine what they can do with their property?". Most people aren't really consistent when they say that!
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about gun issues, etc?
Didn't you hear? "Freedom fries" was just a prank we pulled on Canada to make Canadians seem silly when they got worked into a lather over it. That's all.
Don't worry, we still have Canadian bacon...its place on our menus is safe.
(and just for the record, since this is turning out to be an interesting cultural exchange, freedom fries WAS a joke. I've never run into anybody or ny restaurant that took it seriously.)
Thanks for the link, I've read reports of the study before (though not seen the study itself directly).
A few points. As a previous poster noted, 1 unnecessary death is too many. Any truly preventable deaths should be lamented and the causes fixed. I have a lot of problems with many of the healthcare reform proposals being looked at now, and think there are actually many good things about our healthcare system now, but I am not one who would deny that no changes are needed (as one specific I think the concept of healthcare being linked to job and insurance companies being prevented from national/cross-state plans are disasters).
Having said that, roughly 2.5 million people die in the US every year. Even if each of those 45,000 people cited above really would have lived had they had health insurance, that is still only 1.8% of all deaths. You are never going to be able to prevent every unnecessary death. With a full government run healthcare plan, I don't know how much that 1.8% would drop. Surely not to 0?
The problem, as I see it, with the study is how certain diseases--like diabetes are treated. If people have diabetes, and get no treatment, AND wanted treatment but couldn't get it, that's a problem. I don't know if that's a legitimate issue or not. I spent some time in Hyde Park, Chicago. It's an enclave of rich/upper middle class (and also many dirt poor) people in the overwhelmingly poor and black south side of Chicago. Near a park where I lived was a diabetes clinic. Most days with good weather, many of the patients would be wheeled (amputees) or shuffled out to the park. It was awful to see. Diabetes is in many cases 100% preventable, and even when it it's caught, is almost always manageable. The fact that these people had lost toes, feet, legs, hands, etc to the disease is a travesty. I doubt that merely having insurance would have made much of a difference in most cases. What these people needed was more than just insurance, and I don't see how any current proposals change that.
Your other post regarding Veterans...the VA is a system to provide healthcare to veterans. Almost all veterans are eligible. It has aspects of single payer, current American insurance, and yes, rationing of care, alongs with means test. In short, the VA is what many people want to emulate and extend to others. ~shrug~
Thanks for your reply, I appreciate the links.
At least you are honest.
Please, in the future, when you rant about "indoctrination," think about yourself -- you don't know facts and admit that all you think you know you learned from a movie. I don't mind the rest of what you wrote--alleged differences between Canadians and US, your opinions of capitalism, etc--but the indoctrination bit comes across as just a bit silly!
So let me pose a simple question--how many people down here are dying because we don't have socialized medicine?
No amount of talk will prove you're cancer is covered by your insurance company. Up here, I'd just get treated and hope to live.
That, quite frankly, is a stupid thing to say, and disappointing given that until now you seemed like you were actually trying to have a considerate discussion? Believe or not, (fight your indoctrination?) most Americans do NOT get dumped by their insurance if they get sick. In my little statistically insignificant life, I've never heard of anyone I've met, family members, etc being dumped. And I've known plenty of family members and others who have had cancer, Hodgkins, etc.
You're right that in Canada--just like in the US--you'd get treated for cancer and hope to live. Might have a slightly higher chance of making it if you were living down south ;)
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/07/21/most-cancer-survival-rates-in-usa-better-than-europe-and-canada/
(If you don't like the blogs POV, google it, there are many studies)
I'm willing to bet that, in the US, that all depends on perspective. If you're fairly well off or well employed, the US healthcare system must look fantastic. Cutting edge procedures. Top-notch diagnostics. Shorter waiting periods for non-critical procedures. But if you're on the bubble (ie, in the middle class), or under- or unemployed, I'm willing to bet you feel quite a bit different.
This is perhaps true to some extent. But should we be surprised that the rich have it better than others? Even in Canada the well off have the option of jetting off to America for whatever surgery or treatment they need...to be a truly equalized health care playing field, you would have to forbid such things. Additionally, I honestly don't know satisfaction rates with Medicare/Medicaid, but I'll try to do some googling to find out.
The things everybody does agree on is that healthcare is expensive. Nobody disagrees with that.
Additionally, I suspect political ideology plays a *huge* part. Many Americans have a remarkable distrust of government compared to your average Canadian. Down south, the general belief is that the government can do nothing right, and that anything it gets its paws on will be utterly destroyed in the following trainwreck that would ensue. Meanwhile, Canadians in general seem to feel that the government *can* run some programs effectively, that it should do so where appropriate, and that healthcare is one of those areas.
Ideology does most certainly play a role. There is remarkably little trust in many government institutions. Well earned distrust even!
Lastly, I think, in general, Americans are far more individualistic. Compared to the US, I think more Canadians (not all, just more) feel that social justice is important, and that social programs are a path toward social justice, while Americans feel that government can't be trusted to run these programs and, even for those that believe in the idea of social justice, that charity is the better approach.
Now you're getting dodgy here. For instance in another post I showed how much more Americans give per capita in private philanthropy than other comparable countries (including Canada). You can be a strong believer in social justice while at the same time being an adamant believer that the government is neither the appropriate nor the best agent to affect social justice.
Of course, as a Canadian, I obviously believe we're right and they're wrong. ;) Though, to be fair, the American system of government seems to be royally screwed up... given how incredibly powerful corporations and special interests are in the political system, it might not be so crazy to believe that the US government can't do anything right.
Most people around the world aren't too thrilled with their governments. I suspect the differences are not as great as you think.
http://www.marketingmag.ca/english/news/pr/article.jsp?content=20090226_172226_2812
Should be noted that US trust in govt and business institutions is historically low right now. 20 years ago--even 10 years ago--was a different picture. So, according to this poll--a historic low of 3 out of 10 Americans trust the government, while 5 out of 10 Canadians trust the government. I do think that down the line Canadians are more accepting of government authority than many parts of America are.
Just not right yet, I wish - truly wish - that people would stop dying down there because you don't have social health care for the now.
You've done an excellent job at tackling topics from Ayn Rand, to "nanogoo," to alleged evil corporations polluting without consequence, to indoctrination, to capitalism...and all in response to my simple question of what things about the American health care system don't you like... but all of your theories presuppose so many things (and none of which you've been able to back up, despite my asking you). Let me put it another way--you don't get to keep claiming that corporations are giving people cancer with no consequence to themselves without being able to back it up with the smallest amount of data. Talk about the irony of this, while then talking about how much you know about indoctrination? Introspection time!
So let me pose a simple question--how many people down here are dying because we don't have socialized medicine?
The way I perceive it through my education is that in general the ideals United States of America's citizens are indoctrinated with are rugged individualism
I would disagree with this. I would say that for many years--and even today--the ideal of the American way is an ideal of being self-sufficient, accountability for your own actions, etc. It's more of an ideal in some parts of the country than others (See eg Alaska ;). Having said that, it's an ideal. I don't think ANY Americans would tell someone if they can't pay for healthcare they need that they should rot. Not even the anti-government right wingers. ESPECIALLY not the anti-government right wingers perhaps, as conservative christians tend to give to charity in large numbers. As an example, check out the wikipedia page on private (and public) philanthropy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitable_countries
The US has an incredibly high rate of private philanthropy compared to the Britain, Canada, France, Germany, etc. This is in no way in conflict with the ideal of being self-sufficient.
You should not be sentenced to death because a corportation dumped chemical waste into your backyard because it was the cheapest thing to do
Again, this part of your statement just seems like a strawman. Lawsuits are fought over corporations and companies that ILLEGALLY have dumped waste chemicals that cause sickness. People do not generally go ignored. Yes, it's a tragedy when it happens, but it's against the law, and corporations pay out their nose when they are caught, even for dumping decades ago.
Speaking for myself, mainly the idea that if I developed a catastrophic illness, my insurer might decide to drop coverage, and then I might be forced to go bankrupt in order to, you know, keep living.
Does that really happen?
But, to each his own. I live in a place that echos my ideals, and so I'm happy and glad I don't live in the US. Many in the US feel the same about their system... though I'm incapable of understanding why.
That is one of the most interesting things to me about this conversation. Look at this article for instance--easily half the responses were "move somewhere else!" instead of "buy insurance" (eg). Of the "move somewhere else" responses, many have been Canadians, saying they were sick of their healthcare being unfairly maligned, and that they literally hate the cruel, unethical, murderous (etc) US healthcare system. Then queue the critics of government run healthcare, etc who slander the other systems as removing the dignity of life, needless deaths, etc.
Kinda makes one take another look at nationalism, etc in the modern world! Hatred of other systems--and even others!--is still rife.
And FWIW, I do 100% agree with you that the US is not for everybody, nor is Canada, France, wherever. I personally wish the US was for less people, as I could stand there being fewer people around--would make traffic better ;)
Anyway, thanks for your response!
I feel horror that I may be living somewhere where Government regulations regarding pollution may be lax and through no fault of my own I get cancer.
Well, that really doesn't have anything to do with healthcare...perhaps other aspects of the government, though I think you would be very hard presseed to cite any exames of "regulations...[that] may be lax" causing cancer ? I get the feeling from your message that what you feel horror about isn't necessarily the US healthcare system, but the US system in general?
And then through no fault of my own, say a depressed economy, I am forced to die because I can't pay for the treatments
Strawmen are not a valid form of argument. In response to the question of "what do you feel horror about?" am I safe to paraphrase your answer to "People don't get treated if they can't pay"? Well, as far as I can tell, that's really not true at all. The plural of anecdote is of course not data, but a woman I work with has been intimitately involved in such a case over the last 2 years. Her son and daughter-in-law were drunk driving (without seatbelts even) and got in a bad wreck when they went off the road. The son is STILL having surgeries almost three years later despite having no insurance. A pregnant mother is never going to be turned away from a hospital if she can't pay, etc. Go into any emergency room--it's written right on the wall.
Now that is a problem I DO have--emergency rooms as general care providers. That's something I feel horror about in the US healthcare system.
Phrasing it differently, do Americans have humanity towards others?
Oh, so it's AMERICANS you feel horror about, not the American system like I surmised earlier? :-p
Because if they do then you will see healthcare that doesn't ignore the situations that surround real lives.
I can't quite parse what you mean by the last sentence?
we feel HORROR. God people, how can you choose to do nothing about it?
Just curious, what do you feel horror about? I mean, what aspect (or aspects) of the way healthcare in US works (or doesn't work) alarms you the most?
You know, I'm not going to defend those cretinous bullies at all, but I will add that there are more than just physical bullies. Kids can be jerks. Whether they're smart, dumb, geek, jock, whatever. I've seen some pretty cruel behavior amongst geeks. Perhaps not so overt as a "give me your lunch money now!" bully, but bullying just the same.
IMHO it's part of figuring out human society. Geeks/nerds/other may like to pretend that they're beyond the social ladder and the BS of others, but it's there in other ways. By the time one is 20, it should be about all figured out (hah)