Printable View
I saw this video on one of my friend's facebook pages & thought it was worth posting up. Now before we get certain people whose opinions are already set posting, just watch the whole video. I don't know anything about the group who've made it, but having watched all of it, it seems pretty impartial to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_PX5L_v_7I
Also those idiots abusing the guy with Parkinson's should be exempt from receiving any healthcare. What cunts! :mad:
Those saying the the guy with Parkinson that nothing's free therefore he should work are damn funny and they do not seem to understand that with PArkinson, it's quite hard to do anything at all. I loved those calling Obama a communist too.
There are some reasonable points for both but when it comes down to the real brass tacks: There are obviously people in the world who would place themselves being well off (dollar wise ) above others not so well off being well. I think they are heartless and will eventually attract what they emit soon enough.
Reverse their financial situations and see if they still wouldnt want help if they were broke and it was themselves or their kids were suffering into a worse condition.
Also some of these fools think they have earned their way forward and above their fellow man and so they obviously deserve better.
Some of their fellow humans have never had the same opportunities and never will, some have and have pissed it right up the wall, but Hell is close if we are going to choose who over who lives and dies or worse; suffers all of their life at the expense of others well being.
Interesting video. It shows you what a downright strange place America seems to be. I thought the guy throwing money at the Parkinson's guy was a complete twat. Since when has healthcare for all simply been a government handout? I'm quite against people scrounging off the government, but certainly not when it goes as far as denying them access to a doctor if they need it. I thought the black woman at the end spoke the most sense. Everyone who works hard deserves health coverage.
My issue with the US system is the whole use of insurance companies who decide whether you see a doctor or not. Insurance companies need to be taken out of the equation because they exist simply to make a profit and keep investors happy. It should be a system set up by the government where people can see a doctor whenever they want. Health care is a basic right, not a luxury item.
Yeah Miles, the ass who threw the money would've thrown two one dollar notes, I bet they wernt two separate hundred dollar bills to cover the cost of one appointment for the guy. Heartless cheapskate goes together.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
And the other fool playing the communist card was like drawing out a joker during a poker game; Buffoon.
That plonker calling Obama a communist is an idiot. It's something I have heard from the American right a few too many times. Do any of these people actually have any idea of what a communist is? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreYeah Miles, the ass who threw the money would've thrown two one dollar notes, I bet they wernt two separate hundred dollar bills to cover the cost of one appointment for the guy. Heartless cheapskate goes together.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
And the other fool playing the communist card was like drawing out a joker during a poker game; Buffoon.
Obama is many things and a lot of those terms are far from complimentary, but to call him a communist is just absurd.
They don"t. Labeling somebody a communist in the US is like a scarecrow you do put in a field to give a very bad impression about somebody. The conduct line is : a social healthcare program, therefore social, therefore comes from the word socialist, which is like a form of communism and therefore Obama is a communist... they have no ideas, really, believe me, McCarthy and Regan did more wrong to the US than what we can suspect.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesThat plonker calling Obama a communist is an idiot. It's something I have heard from the American right a few too many times. Do any of these people actually have any idea of what a communist is? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreYeah Miles, the ass who threw the money would've thrown two one dollar notes, I bet they wernt two separate hundred dollar bills to cover the cost of one appointment for the guy. Heartless cheapskate goes together.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
And the other fool playing the communist card was like drawing out a joker during a poker game; Buffoon.
Obama is many things and a lot of those terms are far from complimentary, but to call him a communist is just absurd.
Yeah, it's dumb, really really dumb. Extremism fed by ignorance seems to be on the rise in the US with little sign of going away. What the rest of the world considers normal, the Americans consider dangerous. Think of all the pointless money spent on these stupid wars and all the benefits given to the irresponsible corporate elite....they could probably have funded an excellent healthcare system with that and massively reduced the influence of private insurance companies! It's a joke of a system that exists right now and even this bill is simply an extension of the insurance company control over everything anyway. Building military aircraft at the expense of the health of citizens is shameful and to think a lot of these people in power consider themselves christian people. Utter nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by NamelessThey don"t. Labeling somebody a communist in the US is like a scarecrow you do put in a field to give a very bad impression about somebody. The conduct line is : a social healthcare program, therefore social, therefore comes from the word socialist, which is like a form of communism and therefore Obama is a communist... they have no ideas, really, believe me, McCarthy and Regan did more wrong to the US than what we can suspect.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesThat plonker calling Obama a communist is an idiot. It's something I have heard from the American right a few too many times. Do any of these people actually have any idea of what a communist is? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre
Obama is many things and a lot of those terms are far from complimentary, but to call him a communist is just absurd.
You pretty much summed it up right there. I have a cousin who was born with a hole in her heart. In America, because her parents have no money she would not have been able to get the best medical care, and I would suspect she would have died. Thankfully here the doctors performed a miracle & kept her alive even though when she was born she was given only a 10% chance of survival. I suspect that even a mortgaged home on behalf of everyone in the family wouldn't have convinced an insurance company that 10% was worth trying to save the life of someone's child.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Many health care company are making profiling in the US and will do whatever they can to make you quit if they diagnose you with some kind of bad disease after you got the insurance, they got caught the hand in the jar with the AIDS case, read it, it's staggering:
Shortly after his diagnosis, however, his insurance company, Fortis, revoked his policy. Mitchell was told that without further treatment his HIV would become full-blown AIDS within a year or two and he would most likely die within two years after that.
So he hired an attorney -- not because he wanted to sue anyone; on the contrary, the shy African-American teenager expected his insurance was canceled by mistake and would be reinstated once he set the company straight.
But Fortis, now known as Assurant Health, ignored his attorney's letters, as they had earlier inquiries from a case worker at a local clinic who was helping him. So Mitchell sued.
In 2004, a jury in Florence County, South Carolina, ordered Assurant Health, part of Assurant Inc, to pay Mitchell $15 million for wrongly revoking his heath insurance policy. In September 2009, the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the lower court's verdict, although the court reduced the amount to be paid him to $10 million.
By winning the verdict against Fortis, Mitchell not only obtained a measure of justice for himself; he also helped expose wrongdoing on the part of Fortis that could have repercussions for the entire health insurance industry.
Previously undisclosed records from Mitchell's case reveal that Fortis had a company policy of targeting policyholders with HIV. A computer program and algorithm targeted every policyholder recently diagnosed with HIV for an automatic fraud investigation, as the company searched for any pretext to revoke their policy. As was the case with Mitchell, their insurance policies often were canceled on erroneous information, the flimsiest of evidence, or for no good reason at all, according to the court documents and interviews with state and federal investigators.
The revelations come at a time when President Barack Obama, in his frantic push to rescue the administration's health care plan, has stepped up his criticism of insurers. The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote later this week on an overhaul of the health system, which Obama has said is essential to do away controversial and unpopular industry practices.
Insurance companies have long engaged in the practice of "rescission," whereby they investigate policyholders shortly after they've been diagnosed with life-threatening illnesses. But government regulators and investigators who have overseen the actions of Assurant and other health insurance companies say it is unprecedented for a company to single out people with HIV.
In his previously undisclosed court ruling, the judge in the Mitchell case also criticized what he said were the company's efforts to cover its tracks.
text is too long so I continue in the next message
Assurant Health said that as a matter of policy it did not comment on individual customer claims.
"We disagree with certain of the court's characterizations of Assurant Health's policies and procedures in the Mitchell case," it said in a statement provided by spokesman Peter Duckler, adding: "The case continues to progress through the appellate process."
"REPREHENSIBLE" CONDUCT
Much of the trial record of the Mitchell case is bound by a confidentiality order and not available to the public. But two orders written by the presiding judge, Michael G. Nettles, a state circuit judge for the 12th Judicial District of South Carolina, of Florence County, describe the case in detail. Judge Nettles wrote the orders in response to motions by Assurant that the jury's verdict be set aside or reduced.
In the motions, Nettles not only strongly denied Fortis' claims but condemned the corporation's conduct.
"There was evidence that Fortis' general counsel insisted years ago that members of the rescission committee not record the identity of the persons present and involved in the process of making a decision to rescind a Fortis health insurance policy," Nettles wrote.
Elsewhere in his order, Nettles noted that there were no "minutes of actions, votes, or any business conducted during the rescission committee's meeting."
The South Carolina Supreme Court, in upholding the jury's verdict in the case in a unanimous 5-0 opinion, said that it agreed with the lower court's finding that Fortis destroyed records to hide the corporation's misconduct. Supreme Court Chief Justice Jean Hoefer Toal wrote: "The lack of written rescission policies, the lack of information available regarding appealing rights or procedures, the separate policies for rescission documents" as well as the "omission" of other records regarding the decision to revoke Mitchell's insurance, constituted "evidence that Fortis tried to conceal the actions it took in rescinding his policy."
In affirming the trial verdict and Nettles' order, Toal was as harsh in her criticism of the company as Judge Nettles had been. "We find ample support in the record that Fortis' conduct was reprehensible," she wrote. "Fortis demonstrated an indifference to Mitchell's life and a reckless disregard to his health and safety."
Fortis canceled Mitchell's health insurance based on a single erroneous note from a nurse in his medical records that indicated that he might have been diagnosed prior to his obtaining his insurance policy. When the company's investigators discovered the note, they ceased further review of Mitchell's records for evidence to the contrary, including the records containing the doctor's diagnosis.
Nettles also suggested that Fortis should have realized the date in the note was incorrect: "Not only did Fortis choose to rely on one false and unreliable snippet of information containing an erroneous date to the exclusion of other information which would have revealed that date to be erroneous, Fortis refused to conduct any further investigation even after it was on notice the evidence which aroused its suspicion to be false," the judge noted.
Fortis "gambled" with Mitchell's life, Nettles wrote.
Their motive, according to the judge, was obvious: "The court finds that Fortis wrongfully elevated its concerns for maximizing profits over the rights and interest of its customer." In upholding Nettles' verdict, the South Carolina Supreme Court similarly ruled that "Fortis was motivated to avoid the losses it would undoubtedly incur in supporting Mitchell's costly medical condition."
While declining to comment on specific cases, Assurant said in the statement: "All insurance companies have processes to review claims to ensure their accuracy, completeness and compliance with policy provisions and we evaluate all claims on an individual basis."
CEO DEFENDED RESCISSION
On June 16, 2009, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, held a hearing on the practice of rescission by health insurance companies, and among the industry executives who testified was Don Hamm, the CEO and President of Assurant Health.
Hamm insisted before the committee that rescission was a necessary tool for Assurant and other health insurance companies to hold the cost of premiums down for other policyholders. Hamm asserted that rescission was "one of many protections supporting the affordability and viability of individual health insurance in the United States under our present system."
He also suggested that those who had their policies rescinded by Assurant had attempted to intentionally mislead his company: "Unfortunately, there are times when we discover that an applicant did not provide complete or accurate medical information when we underwrote the risk," Hamm said.
But state regulators, federal and congressional investigators, and consumer advocates say that in only a tiny percentage of cases of people who have had their health insurance canceled was there a legitimate reason.
A 2007 investigation by a California state regulatory agency, the California Department of Managed Health Care, bore this out. The DMHC randomly selected 90 instances in which Anthem Blue Cross of California, one of WellPoint's largest subsidiaries, canceled the insurance of policy holders after diagnoses with costly or life-threatening illnesses to determine how many were legally justified.
The result: The agency concluded that Anthem Blue Cross lacked legal grounds for canceling policies in every single instance.
"In all 90 files, there was no evidence (that Blue Cross), before rescinding coverage, investigated or established that the applicant's omission/misrepresentation was willful," the DMHC report said.
WRONG DATE
The Fortis underwriter who recommended Mitchell's policy be rescinded had her own doubts that it was correct to do so, according to records the company did produce at trial.
In a reference to the nurse's note with the wrong date, the underwriter wrote to her superiors: "Technically, we do not have the results of the HIV test. This is the only entry in the medical records regarding HIV status. Is this sufficient?"
Relying on the note was dubious, Judge Nettles wrote, because it was included in records from 2002, when Mitchell was in fact diagnosed with HIV, and not in 2001, when he purchased his policy. "The chronological sequence of those records raises an inference that the date on the handwritten note may be erroneous," he wrote.
Moreover, Nettles said, if Mitchell's HIV diagnosis had been a year earlier, as the erroneous note said, Mitchell's medical records would have shown other references to that diagnosis and treatment and he would have sought reimbursement for expenses related to them.
Sallie Phelan, an attorney who represented Mitchell, says her client was bewildered as to why his insurance was canceled -- at first not even contemplating the possibility that there was anything improper going on: "We began representing Jerome when he was still just a boy, really," she said. "He was just this sweet kid with all these drives and ambitions."
Then Mitchell felt betrayed, Phelan says. "He had done everything he was supposed to. He went out and got insurance on his own, at 17. He was a trusting person, perhaps too trustful. And as they kept slamming doors in his face, he thought at first there was some misunderstanding. He couldn't understand what was going on, because he is such an honest person himself. And when they accused him of lying, that was the most harmful to him. He didn't understand why they were accusing them. He didn't understand why people weren't listening to him."
Like other major health insurance companies, Fortis has a "rescission committee" that reviews recommendations to cancel a policyholder's insurance. But in the case of Fortis, Nettles wrote, the committee rarely did more than "rubber stamp" already flawed recommendations.
"There were no rules, no minutes, no notes, and, in accordance with instructions from general counsel not even a record of who was present," the judge wrote about the committee.
During the meeting in which Mitchell's insurance was rescinded, "there were more than 40 other customers, whose cases appeared before the rescission committee for review in no more than one and one half to two hours, representing an average of three minutes or less per customer," he wrote.
According to Nettles, Fortis concealed information through its document retention practice. The company's "stated policy for the last nine years has been to microfilm and destroy all documents," the judge said. "There was also evidence that documents and/or records regarding (Mitchell's) policy were deleted; and that telephone logs and recordings contained key omissions." Fortis also "shredded" documents, he said.
Regarding another piece of key evidence, the judge concluded that "a jury could easily infer that Fortis destroyed and/or concealed" crucial evidence.
Overall, Nettles asserted, a "pattern of secrecy and concealment by Fortis in this case ... supports a high award of punitive damages."
After his insurance was canceled, a case worker with a social agency who works with HIV patients named Mary Wiggins worked tirelessly for Mitchell to find him medical care and to have Fortis reinstate his insurance. Despite deluging Fortis with records and information that should have led to a reversal of the decision, the insurance company simply ignored her. Wiggins found a local clinic that agreed to provide care for Mitchell, in the process very likely saving his life.
Eventually, Mitchell retained legal counsel to have his health insurance reinstated, but Fortis ignored them as well. It was only after the insurance company was sued -- some 22 months after his HIV diagnosis -- that Mitchell's insurance was reinstated.
COST CONTAINMENT
In his order, Nettles said Mitchell's treatment was typical of how Fortis treated patients recently diagnosed with HIV and other life-threatening diseases.
"In addition to these acts toward (Mitchell) there was evidence that Fortis has for some time been making recommendations for rescission, and acting on those recommendations, without good-faith investigation conducted fairly and objectively ... Fortis pre-programed its computer to recognize the billing codes for expensive health conditions, which triggers an automatic fraud investigation by its "Cost Containment" division whenever such a code is recognized."
A federal investigator who has reviewed Assurant's remaining records says that they showed that once a person with HIV was targeted with a fraud investigation, the company made a greater effort than usual to cancel the person's insurance. Policies and medical records were scrutinized to a greater extent than others being scrutinized, he said.
The investigator, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that the motive for focusing on people with HIV was simply the high cost of treating the illness: "We are talking a lifetime of therapy, a lifetime of care ... a lot of bills. Nowadays someone with HIV can live a normal life for decades. This was about money."
No evidence has emerged that any other major American company purged policyholders simply because they had HIV. But an investigation this summer by the House Energy and Commerce Committee as well as earlier ones by state regulators in California, New York and Connecticut, found that thousands of vulnerable and seriously ill policyholders have had their coverage canceled by many of the nation's largest insurance companies without any legal basis. The congressional committee found that three insurance companies alone saved at least $300 million over five years from rescission. One of those three companies was Assurant.
The committee estimated that Assurant alone profited by more than $150 million between 2003 and 2007 from rescission.
During his appearance on June 16 before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Hamm, the CEO and President of Assurant, urged Congress to pass the new health care legislation, in part, to prevent such practices.
"We can achieve the goal we share -- providing health care coverage for all Americans," Hamm said. "If a system can be created where coverage is available to everyone and all Americans are required to participate, the process we are addressing today, rescission, becomes unnecessary."
(Additional reporting by Lewis Krauskopf, editing by Jim Impoco and Claudia Parsons)
Insurer targeted HIV patients to drop coverage | Reuters
Sorry to go off topic a little bit. Before I start I'll say that my political leanings are more of an libertarian.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
The reason why many Americans are opposed to universal health care has to do with the culture and upbringing in America and its European colonial ties. We are taught from day 1 to be self-independent and self-made in a highly capitalistic society.
American society by most accounts is a meritocracy, not entirely a pure one, but someone can still achieve great things in this country by sheer will, hard work, talent, intelligence, some luck, and a little bit of connections. When one is on any type of social government program, whether it be welfare, section 8 housing, unemployment money, or something of that nature, it's looked down upon as that person not being competent and able to survive on his or her own. Then you add to the fact of America's British colonial ties, and that most white Americans are descendants of those being misfits and outcasts of many European societies, social programs like universal health care that are similar like that of many European countries aren't just accepted. There's also a reason why Americans don't like many things that are considered to be European, it can be social programs, soccer, Europe's metric system (which has been implemented worldwide), etc. America has always tried to be different than Europe, because it wants to distance itself from a place that they couldn't fit in and were outcasts and do things their own way for the most part. Then you add to it, a lot of Americans don't want the government being too intrusive, this probably stems also from America's British colonial legacy, even though most Americans don't realize it, but this distrust of big government has its origins here.
I still remember a general education sociology class I took in my 1st year of college years ago that explains this in vivid detail of how and why Americans think a certain way compared to the rest of the world, especially Europe. It's just ingrained in us. I remember watching a video on some European country in that class, I think it was Norway, and it described how many people are on government social programs like universal health care, free or reduce housing, free food, and many other government programs. The majority of the class were thinking those people were lazy and didn't earn their way in life, sure there was a minority that thought it was great, but the outright majority thought it was strange to depend on the government for so many things when the citizens were perfectly able to work for it.
Just a little insight guys. I'm not an expert on this, but I still remember that sociology class, definitely one of my most memorable and it explained things in this world that made sense. I would have majored in it if I wasn't talented in art and was attending an art school.
It amazes me the amount of false information that's perpetuated in the political arena. I mean it's always been there, but it spreads so fast now with all of the avenues of communication. People choose their sides and then don't need much convincing to believe things.
The logic of American politics is basically this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
There's actually more social class mobility in Europe than there is in America :Quote:
Originally Posted by generalbulldogSorry to go off topic a little bit. Before I start I'll say that my political leanings are more of an libertarian.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
The reason why many Americans are opposed to universal health care has to do with the culture and upbringing in America and its European colonial ties. We are taught from day 1 to be self-independent and self-made in a highly capitalistic society.
American society by most accounts is a meritocracy, not entirely a pure one, but someone can still achieve great things in this country by sheer will, hard work, talent, intelligence, some luck, and a little bit of connections. When one is on any type of social government program, whether it be welfare, section 8 housing, unemployment money, or something of that nature, it's looked down upon as that person not being competent and able to survive on his or her own. Then you add to the fact of America's British colonial ties, and that most white Americans are descendants of those being misfits and outcasts of many European societies, social programs like universal health care that are similar like that of many European countries aren't just accepted. There's also a reason why Americans don't like many things that are considered to be European, it can be social programs, soccer, Europe's metric system (which has been implemented worldwide), etc. America has always tried to be different than Europe, because it wants to distance itself from a place that they couldn't fit in and were outcasts and do things their own way for the most part. Then you add to it, a lot of Americans don't want the government being too intrusive, this probably stems also from America's British colonial legacy, even though most Americans don't realize it, but this distrust of big government has its origins here.
I still remember a general education sociology class I took in my 1st year of college years ago that explains this in vivid detail of how and why Americans think a certain way compared to the rest of the world, especially Europe. It's just ingrained in us. I remember watching a video on some European country in that class, I think it was Norway, and it described how many people are on government social programs like universal health care, free or reduce housing, free food, and many other government programs. The majority of the class were thinking those people were lazy and didn't earn their way in life, sure there was a minority that thought it was great, but the outright majority thought it was strange to depend on the government for so many things when the citizens were perfectly able to work for it.
Just a little insight guys. I'm not an expert on this, but I still remember that sociology class, definitely one of my most memorable and it explained things in this world that made sense. I would have majored in it if I wasn't talented in art and was attending an art school.
Making it has been the American dream for two centuries. Horatio Alger, who died 110 years ago this month, wrote dozens of hugely popular novels (Struggling Upward, Strive and Succeed) that imprinted the aspiration on millions of minds. In their pages boys would rise from poverty to the middle class, often through the kindly intercession of older men but always with a display of grit. The theme spanned the 19th-century Atlantic: Samuel Smiles (1812-1904) promoted the theme of social advancement through individual striving in Self Help (1859) and other works. The career of his fellow Scot Andrew Carnegie, moving from real childhood rags to world-beating riches in early middle age, gave foundation to such exhortations. But where the myth had reality, it now has less. Recent studies show that the US is near the top, and the UK in the upper levels, of the league of developed states in which the poor do not or cannot help themselves to rise. One much quoted study notes that “the idea of the US as ‘the land of opportunity’ persists; and clearly seems misplaced”.
Individual and family mobility – another irony – seems better served in states with a strong social democratic tradition. In the Scandinavian countries, Denmark in particular, movement up (and down) is better lubricated. One cannot have everything. The international tables of top universities are dominated by the US and the UK, which cater for global as well as their own elites. Hard-driving and expensive private schools are embedded in the Anglo-American social fabrics; the Cabinet Office report shows that some professions – such as the judiciary and journalism – are at the higher levels dominated by their products. When this writer began in a provincial newsroom, he was one of two graduates; the route to national glory could still be trod by a school leaver with shorthand and sharp elbows. Now, it would be far more difficult.
FT.com / Comment / Opinion - The mobile society stalls at the gates of academe
And this :
http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFil...eam_Report.pdf
America at the bottom of the heap, only behind Britain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
The bill that just passed in America was originally the GOP counter-plan to the Clinton attempt to pass healthcare. The almost exact-same plan was put forward by Senator Bob Dole (R-Viagra) in the 1990s. The current version, the one being described as socialism, was actually written by an executive from one of the healthcare insurers in much the same way the current financial reform bill has been written by Wall Street lobbyists.
And to cap it off, Mitt Romney, GOP presidential candidate called the bill an unconscionable abuse of power, socialist etc. However as Governor of Massachucetts he passed exactly the same healthcare legislation which currently covers the entire state. It was a solid moderate GOP plan when he did it, now it's socialism.
The bill is actually pretty crap. It could be a lot better and save hundreds of billions more dollars for Americans, trillions even, but there aren't enough people not bought and paid for in by the healthcare lobby in the Democratic party to get enough votes to pass something good.
Very interesting, and thanks for the sources. I was just explaining in my other posts on how Americans think a certain way. And to me there is a reason why we think like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingThere's actually more social class mobility in Europe than there is in America :Quote:
Originally Posted by generalbulldogSorry to go off topic a little bit. Before I start I'll say that my political leanings are more of an libertarian.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
The reason why many Americans are opposed to universal health care has to do with the culture and upbringing in America and its European colonial ties. We are taught from day 1 to be self-independent and self-made in a highly capitalistic society.
American society by most accounts is a meritocracy, not entirely a pure one, but someone can still achieve great things in this country by sheer will, hard work, talent, intelligence, some luck, and a little bit of connections. When one is on any type of social government program, whether it be welfare, section 8 housing, unemployment money, or something of that nature, it's looked down upon as that person not being competent and able to survive on his or her own. Then you add to the fact of America's British colonial ties, and that most white Americans are descendants of those being misfits and outcasts of many European societies, social programs like universal health care that are similar like that of many European countries aren't just accepted. There's also a reason why Americans don't like many things that are considered to be European, it can be social programs, soccer, Europe's metric system (which has been implemented worldwide), etc. America has always tried to be different than Europe, because it wants to distance itself from a place that they couldn't fit in and were outcasts and do things their own way for the most part. Then you add to it, a lot of Americans don't want the government being too intrusive, this probably stems also from America's British colonial legacy, even though most Americans don't realize it, but this distrust of big government has its origins here.
I still remember a general education sociology class I took in my 1st year of college years ago that explains this in vivid detail of how and why Americans think a certain way compared to the rest of the world, especially Europe. It's just ingrained in us. I remember watching a video on some European country in that class, I think it was Norway, and it described how many people are on government social programs like universal health care, free or reduce housing, free food, and many other government programs. The majority of the class were thinking those people were lazy and didn't earn their way in life, sure there was a minority that thought it was great, but the outright majority thought it was strange to depend on the government for so many things when the citizens were perfectly able to work for it.
Just a little insight guys. I'm not an expert on this, but I still remember that sociology class, definitely one of my most memorable and it explained things in this world that made sense. I would have majored in it if I wasn't talented in art and was attending an art school.
Making it has been the American dream for two centuries. Horatio Alger, who died 110 years ago this month, wrote dozens of hugely popular novels (Struggling Upward, Strive and Succeed) that imprinted the aspiration on millions of minds. In their pages boys would rise from poverty to the middle class, often through the kindly intercession of older men but always with a display of grit. The theme spanned the 19th-century Atlantic: Samuel Smiles (1812-1904) promoted the theme of social advancement through individual striving in Self Help (1859) and other works. The career of his fellow Scot Andrew Carnegie, moving from real childhood rags to world-beating riches in early middle age, gave foundation to such exhortations. But where the myth had reality, it now has less. Recent studies show that the US is near the top, and the UK in the upper levels, of the league of developed states in which the poor do not or cannot help themselves to rise. One much quoted study notes that “the idea of the US as ‘the land of opportunity’ persists; and clearly seems misplaced”.
Individual and family mobility – another irony – seems better served in states with a strong social democratic tradition. In the Scandinavian countries, Denmark in particular, movement up (and down) is better lubricated. One cannot have everything. The international tables of top universities are dominated by the US and the UK, which cater for global as well as their own elites. Hard-driving and expensive private schools are embedded in the Anglo-American social fabrics; the Cabinet Office report shows that some professions – such as the judiciary and journalism – are at the higher levels dominated by their products. When this writer began in a provincial newsroom, he was one of two graduates; the route to national glory could still be trod by a school leaver with shorthand and sharp elbows. Now, it would be far more difficult.
FT.com / Comment / Opinion - The mobile society stalls at the gates of academe
And this :
http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFil...eam_Report.pdf
America at the bottom of the heap, only behind Britain.
But America is a different country than the Western European nation states. Just because certain programs works in say Norway or Denmark doesn't mean it will work in America. You have to factor in a massive population, different ethnic groups, history, social, and cultural factors to come up with something that works in America.
You've got a bigger population, a ton of ethnic groups and a lot of languages in Europe but taken as a whole much more social mobility. The thing America needs more of is education. The best liberal government programme ever was the G.I. bill giving them all college education. That created a new middle class which created massive economic growth, it paid for itself many many many times over. Since 1980 though America is becoming a country that rewards inherited versus earned wealth and that's a bad thing, you need more access to education instead of tax breaks for Paris Hilton.Quote:
Originally Posted by generalbulldogVery interesting, and thanks for the sources. I was just explaining in my other posts on how Americans think a certain way. And to me there is a reason why we think like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingThere's actually more social class mobility in Europe than there is in America :Quote:
Originally Posted by generalbulldog
Making it has been the American dream for two centuries. Horatio Alger, who died 110 years ago this month, wrote dozens of hugely popular novels (Struggling Upward, Strive and Succeed) that imprinted the aspiration on millions of minds. In their pages boys would rise from poverty to the middle class, often through the kindly intercession of older men but always with a display of grit. The theme spanned the 19th-century Atlantic: Samuel Smiles (1812-1904) promoted the theme of social advancement through individual striving in Self Help (1859) and other works. The career of his fellow Scot Andrew Carnegie, moving from real childhood rags to world-beating riches in early middle age, gave foundation to such exhortations. But where the myth had reality, it now has less. Recent studies show that the US is near the top, and the UK in the upper levels, of the league of developed states in which the poor do not or cannot help themselves to rise. One much quoted study notes that “the idea of the US as ‘the land of opportunity’ persists; and clearly seems misplaced”.
Individual and family mobility – another irony – seems better served in states with a strong social democratic tradition. In the Scandinavian countries, Denmark in particular, movement up (and down) is better lubricated. One cannot have everything. The international tables of top universities are dominated by the US and the UK, which cater for global as well as their own elites. Hard-driving and expensive private schools are embedded in the Anglo-American social fabrics; the Cabinet Office report shows that some professions – such as the judiciary and journalism – are at the higher levels dominated by their products. When this writer began in a provincial newsroom, he was one of two graduates; the route to national glory could still be trod by a school leaver with shorthand and sharp elbows. Now, it would be far more difficult.
FT.com / Comment / Opinion - The mobile society stalls at the gates of academe
And this :
http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFil...eam_Report.pdf
America at the bottom of the heap, only behind Britain.
But America is a different country than the Western European nation states. Just because certain programs works in say Norway or Denmark doesn't mean it will work in America. You have to factor in a massive population, different ethnic groups, history, social, and cultural factors to come up with something that works in America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingYou've got a bigger population, a ton of ethnic groups and a lot of languages in Europe but taken as a whole much more social mobility. The thing America needs more of is education. The best liberal government programme ever was the G.I. bill giving them all college education. That created a new middle class which created massive economic growth, it paid for itself many many many times over. Since 1980 though America is becoming a country that rewards inherited versus earned wealth and that's a bad thing, you need more access to education instead of tax breaks for Paris Hilton.Quote:
Originally Posted by generalbulldogVery interesting, and thanks for the sources. I was just explaining in my other posts on how Americans think a certain way. And to me there is a reason why we think like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
But America is a different country than the Western European nation states. Just because certain programs works in say Norway or Denmark doesn't mean it will work in America. You have to factor in a massive population, different ethnic groups, history, social, and cultural factors to come up with something that works in America.
During the early years of the foundation of this country the founders emphasized education and mandated that children and adolescents be required to attend school.
There are plenty of opportunities to have an education in the US. Junior colleges for those that needs to build up their academic skills, records and/or to save money prior to transfer to a 4 year university. ANd the JC college transfers get priority over high school seniors wanting to be accepted. There are plenty of grants, scholarships, financial aid, to go around. Even many elite private schools like an USC, Stanford, Duke, and some of the Ivy league schools will accept a junior college transfer, not to mentioned top level visual and performance art schools.
If one wants to have an education badly enough they can obtain it in the US, it's not like they are denied. It's up to the parents to put a premium on education and encourage their kids. We all know that it is one of the most assured way for social mobility. But if you don't have the social capital at home, then all is lost.
But, I do think there should be more educational and social programs for minorities like blacks and Latinos to encourage them to further their education and escape the cycle of poverty that has plagued their parents.