Seriously thoughtful US/Europe Cultural Divide -- Musings

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Gomoto

private charity vs. government action?

Tent Cities rising in USA or in Europe?

Kind Regards
Gomoto

Private charity vs. government action is certainly an example of the kind of thing on which I'm seeking the views of other. As for the "Tent Cities" remark... I'm not sure what you're getting at. Please explain.

Xenophon

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

And therein lies the difference, Nate. You consider a government-run healthcare system to be a "nanny"; we perceive it as a basic duty of government to provide such a service, and free access to healthcare to be a fundamental human right.

I can't believe no one noticed the fallacy in his statement. Nothing provided by the government is free, Harry. Someone has to pay for it.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I can't believe no one noticed the fallacy in his statement. Nothing provided by the government is free, Harry. Someone has to pay for it.

He said "free access" he didn't say freely provided. I have "free access" to health care here in the United States, as long as I can pay for it.

BOb

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

He said "free access" he didn't say freely provided. I have "free access" to health care here in the United States, as long as I can pay for it.

BOb

If you have to pay for it then the access isn't free.

But I think you mean unimpaired access. That isn't true either. Did you know that the new NHS standard is to schedule all surgeries within 18 weeks of diagnosis?Think of what that means for someone who has a heart attack.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I can't believe no one noticed the fallacy in his statement. Nothing provided by the government is free, Harry. Someone has to pay for it.

It is of course funded by the tax-payer, but, because it is funded by the tax-payer, it is freely accessible to all British people; it does not depend on one's personal ability to pay for it.

Your comment about 18 week surgery waiting lists applies to "routine" stuff. Obviously, if you have something urgent (like the heart attack that you mention), you get immediate surgery!

[Ea]

Several have mentioned that there seem to be more focus on the 'norm' in Europe where USA focus more one the outlier. It may be, but there's another thing.... I would say it has as much to do with a sense of equality. I percieve USA as a society where a much greater inequality is accepted as normal than in Europe.

Not everyone has equal possibilities, and one reason I can accept high taxes is that I think it's a good idea to, to some extent, spread the wealth and even out some of the inherent inequality (I earn a 'nice' pay btw. - mainly due to a good, and free, education)

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Obviously, Nate, is it funded by the tax-payer, but, because it is funded by the tax-payer, it is freely accessible to all British people; it does not depend on one's personal ability to pay for it.

Access is free, but treatment often isn't.

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/M...osts/DH_087013
"The NHS prescription charge is a flat-rate amount which successive Governments have thought it reasonable to charge for those who can afford to pay for their medicines. Prescription prepayment certificates (PPCs) offer real savings for people who need extensive medication.

NHS charges
From 1 April 2009, charges will increase to:
Prescription: £7.20
12-month prepayment certificate (PPC): £104.00
3-month PPC: £28.25"

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Access is free, but treatment often isn't.

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/M...osts/DH_087013
"The NHS prescription charge is a flat-rate amount which successive Governments have thought it reasonable to charge for those who can afford to pay for their medicines. Prescription prepayment certificates (PPCs) offer real savings for people who need extensive medication.

NHS charges
From 1 April 2009, charges will increase to:
Prescription: £7.20
12-month prepayment certificate (PPC): £104.00
3-month PPC: £28.25"

But the overwhelming majority of NHS prescriptions are dispensed free. Anyone on a state pension gets free prescriptions, anyone out of work, etc. The £7.20 is a fairly nominal charge and, in most cases, is a lot less than the medicine actually costs.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But the overwhelming majority of NHS prescriptions are dispensed free. Anyone on a state pension gets free prescriptions, anyone out of work, etc. The £7.20 is a fairly nominal charge and, in most cases, is a lot less than the medicine actually costs.

It's just that the UK's NHS is often portrayed as a 'free' health service, and that may be how many people in other countries think of it in discussions like this - in fact many people don't qualify for free health care.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Getting back to the original topic, do our EU members agree that the EU culture values the norm more than the outliers, at least for public policy making? That seems like a broad generalization to me, but there might be some truth to it.

I would agree, yes. There is some change to this policy recently, but broadly speaking: Yes.

[HarryT]

I don't think it changes the fundamental nature of the system. In many European countries, one has to pay a (nominal) sum to see a GP (which we don't). Doesn't alter the fact that everyone basically has free access to healthcare (IMHO).

Nate's postion that "it's a fallacy to say that it's free because someone's paid for it" is, IMHO, nitpicking in the extreme. It's like saying that interstate highways in the US are not "free" to use because they've been funded by the taxpayer. I think that every reasonable person understands the difference between publically-available facilities funded by the taxpayer, and facilities that there is a personal charge to use.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Getting back to the original topic, do our EU members agree that the EU culture values the norm more than the outliers, at least for public policy making? That seems like a broad generalization to me, but there might be some truth to it.

I don't really know what to make of it. The closest thing I can think of that applies here is "equal access".
The problem arises when I start applying the notion to individual examples; the statements start sounding a bit polemical.
i.e. we don't believe in providing healthcare only to those who have enough money (considering how in the US it's not even "everyone who works", but "everyone who works and gets healthcare"), but to everyone,
or "we don't believe that parents should be the only ones who pay for their children's education." That is, I know few countries where undergraduate degree tuition fees are significantly above €2000 or so per year, (UK excepted) with most being slightly or well below that. Which I consider a significant enough difference with the US. That said, we also don't really have scholarships, nor do we have an "ivy league," as all unis are more or less comparable in the standards they set.

sidenote: on the High school front (age ~12-18) we (in holland and germany) are actually a bit different, as we separate the different 'tracks' in HS based on (probable) ability (the estimate comes from a test for 11-12yos). I never really get why you'd want to put everyone in the same HS classes anyway; all it seems to require is that you either lower standards or have more dropouts.

Sidenote2: we've now (since 4 years or so) got 2 of those silly "colleges" that charge €30.000 a year for dorms+tuition+being generally marvelous. That said, I hear very little from them that makes me envious of the kids that go there (they seem to be mostly the same type as G.W. was, sent there more because of parental pretentiousness than genuine merit). Offers mostly lib arts undergraduate degrees. ("knowing a little of everything"...)

Anyway, to get back on topic: We definitely value achievement here, we just put less emphasis on it; what I suspect is the biggest difference is 1) we don't equate achievement with income, and 2) that we have a larger group of people who have enjoyed an undergraduate-equivalent educational background, or are more or less on that "intellectual level" (if you'll allow me that somewhat awkward description), who don't all feel they need to excel in order to feel happy. That is, there's less of a dichotomy, or mutual resentment (I can't really think of a word that applies here, but basically the difference between the jock and the nerd write large, where, to exaggerate, the jock harrasses the nerd until the end of HS, after which they never meet again, and the nerd will always think less of jocks afterward) between the "underclass" and the "educated class". While that difference is probably overemphasized, there is a very tangible undercurrent or seeding ground in which you can much more easily "accuse" an american of "elitism", and this will usually stick/work. I can't think of an analogous education-related slur that exists here. It's one of the things that struck me when Kerry was voted off: sure, the guy was a bit awkward, but why would you want to accuse him of having brains and being raised in the "american way" (that is, by parents with money who ensured he got a "good" education and met the right friends)?
Anyway, while this might not seem related to our valuing "the norm" rather than "outliers", I suspect it is, and I suspect that "valuing outliers" is true of less parts of American culture than suggested by the proffered generalization. "healthcare isn't a right, it's something you have to earn" sounds more like a rationalization/excuse to me (for the fact that you in your current system can't afford it) than a real "fact". Sure, healthcare wasn't there in the 1800s, but things change. Whereas education was once something reserved for the rich, it's now (at least legally) for everyone; similarly for healthcare.
Again, the whole country benefits from having a healthy work force (if you'll forgive the fact I don't refer to people as people), similarly for education. Exceptions aside, educated people will be more productive, and more able, than uneducated ones. The whole current fear seems to be that all unskilled labor is leaving the USA: the reason GM can't be allowed to die like it should is because the people who worked there have nowhere else to go, because there's nothing else they can do. While I'm not saying we anticipated this whereas you ignored it, I am saying that having 20-30% of the population only capable of manual labor is a waste of resources, if only because they'll need welfare.
The whole point of "outliers" is that they are. Statistics might be deceitfully quoted, but the bell curve doesn't lie, if nothing else. And believing you should only care about the upper outliers means you're creating a culture in which 50-60% of the population will to some extent probably feel un(der)appreciated.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

That is, I know few countries where undergraduate degree tuition fees are above are systematically above €2000 or so per year, with most being slightly or well below that. Which I consider a notable enough difference with the US.

English universities can currently charge students a maximum of £3000 per year in tuition fees, but there is a government-run "student loan" system which will lend students the money, interest-free, until they start work and have to repay it. ie in theory, at least, access to university education is not dependent upon one's ability to pay for it "up front".

[YGG-]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

I don't really know what to make of it. The closest thing I can think of that applies here is "equal access".
The problem arises when I start applying the notion to individual examples; the statements start sounding a bit polemical.
i.e. we don't believe in providing healthcare only to those who have enough money (considering how in the US it's not even "everyone who works", but "everyone who works and gets healthcare"), but to everyone,
or "we don't believe that parents should be the only ones who pay for their children's education." That is, I know few countries where undergraduate degree tuition fees are significantly above €2000 or so per year, (UK excepted) with most being slightly or well below that. Which I consider a significant enough difference with the US. That said, we also don't really have scholarships, nor do we have an "ivy league," as all unis are more or less comparable in the standards they set.

sidenote: on the High school front (age ~12-18) we (in holland and germany) are actually a bit different, as we separate the different 'tracks' in HS based on (probable) ability (the estimate comes from a test for 11-12yos). I never really get why you'd want to put everyone in the same HS classes anyway; all it seems to require is that you either lower standards or have more dropouts.

Sidenote2: we've now (since 4 years or so) got 2 of those silly "colleges" that charge €30.000 a year for dorms+tuition+being generally marvelous. That said, I hear very little from them that makes me envious of the kids that go there (they seem to be mostly the same type as G.W. was, sent there more because of parental pretentiousness than genuine merit). Offers mostly lib arts undergraduate degrees. ("knowing a little of everything"...)

Anyway, to get back on topic: We definitely value achievement here, we just put less emphasis on it; what I suspect is the biggest difference is 1) we don't equate achievement with income, and 2) that we have a larger group of people who have enjoyed an undergraduate-equivalent educational background, or are more or less on that "intellectual level" (if you'll allow me that somewhat awkward description), who don't all feel they need to excel in order to feel happy. That is, there's less of a dichotomy, or mutual resentment (I can't really think of a word that applies here, but basically the difference between the jock and the nerd write large, where, to exaggerate, the jock harrasses the nerd until the end of HS, after which they never meet again, and the nerd will always think less of jocks afterward) between the "underclass" and the "educated class". While that difference is probably overemphasized, there is a very tangible undercurrent or seeding ground in which you can much more easily "accuse" an american of "elitism", and this will usually stick/work. I can't think of an analogous education-related slur that exists here. It's one of the things that struck me when Kerry was voted off: sure, the guy was a bit awkward, but why would you want to accuse him of having brains and being raised in the "american way" (that is, by parents with money who ensured he got a "good" education and met the right friends)?
Anyway, while this might not seem related to our valuing "the norm" rather than "outliers", I suspect it is, and I suspect that "valuing outliers" is true of less parts of American culture than suggested by the proffered generalization. "healthcare isn't a right, it's something you have to earn" sounds more like a rationalization/excuse to me (for the fact that you in your current system can't afford it) than a real "fact". Sure, healthcare wasn't there in the 1800s, but things change. Whereas education was once something reserved for the rich, it's now (at least legally) for everyone; similarly for healthcare.
Again, the whole country benefits from having a healthy work force (if you'll forgive the fact I don't refer to people as people), similarly for education. Exceptions aside, educated people will be more productive, and more able, than uneducated ones. The whole current fear seems to be that all unskilled labor is leaving the USA: the reason GM can't be allowed to die like it should is because the people who worked there have nowhere else to go, because there's nothing else they can do. While I'm not saying we anticipated this whereas you ignored it, I am saying that having 20-30% of the population only capable of manual labor is a waste of resources, if only because they'll need welfare.
The whole point of "outliers" is that they are. Statistics might be deceitfully quoted, but the bell curve doesn't lie, if nothing else. And believing you should only care about the upper outliers means you're creating a culture in which 50-60% of the population will to some extent probably feel un(der)appreciated.

I fully agree. (& feeling too lazy to add the numerous thoughts that come to mind about this portentous topic... )

[Ea]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

<snipped for brevity>

Again, the whole country benefits from having a healthy work force (if you'll forgive the fact I don't refer to people as people), similarly for education. Exceptions aside, educated people will be more productive, and more able, than uneducated ones. The whole current fear seems to be that all unskilled labor is leaving the USA: the reason GM can't be allowed to die like it should is because the people who worked there have nowhere else to go, because there's nothing else they can do. While I'm not saying we anticipated this whereas you ignored it, I am saying that having 20-30% of the population only capable of manual labor is a waste of resources, if only because they'll need welfare.
The whole point of "outliers" is that they are. Statistics might be deceitfully quoted, but the bell curve doesn't lie, if nothing else. And believing you should only care about the upper outliers means you're creating a culture in which 50-60% of the population will to some extent probably feel un(der)appreciated.

I agree. I have been trying to figure out to say this, but you did it much better than I ever could