Video showing a healthcare reform rally

[Kirkland Laing]

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

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.

[generalbulldog]

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.

Sorry to go off topic a little bit. Before I start I'll say that my political leanings are more of an libertarian.

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.

There's actually more social class mobility in Europe than there is in America :

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.

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.

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.

[Kirkland Laing]

Sorry to go off topic a little bit. Before I start I'll say that my political leanings are more of an libertarian.

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.

There's actually more social class mobility in Europe than there is in America :

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.

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.

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.

[generalbulldog]

There's actually more social class mobility in Europe than there is in America :

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.

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.

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.

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.