Seriously thoughtful US/Europe Cultural Divide -- Musings

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Laz116

Wow... that's just horrible imo. Over the matter of a life span you will be gaming the system with that attitude.

One thing is to reject insurance, government health care and so forth. An entirely different thing is to exploit a system which is build on the foundation that we all pay a median as insurance so that we don't have to sell our houses if we get a costly disease. What you do is maximising your advantage at the cost of everyone else. All the people out there paying insurance all their lives pay a higher median because you only insure yourself when the probability of having to use the insurance is high.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is just completely unacceptable in a democratic society. You are a consumer, not at citizen.

You should read to the end of the thread before responding. This has already been said.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by wodin

The REAL point is, the more that Governments get involved with service, the lower the quality of that service. Do you REALLY want your health care managed by bureaucrats?

Hmmm. That could be because of Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy, which provides: "In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely."

Not only that, but when government provides a service, it seems to drive out anyone else trying to do the same thing. Kind of a variation on Gresham's Law. For example, when government cleans the streets, no one else does. As a result, more trash seems to get onto the street, as people expect government to clean it up.

In the arena of charity, which started the thread, reports concerning the relative charitable giving of conservatives and liberals appear to show that conservatives give more to charity than liberals, primarily because liberals believe that their taxes include their charitable giving - which might be part of the reason liberals tolerate higher taxes than conservatives. And which probably accounts for the fact that our esteemed vice-president gave less than $4000 to charity, total, over the last ten years. Averaging under 400 bucks a year.

And now for a Book Reference: as Ebenezer Scrooge observed when the guys came around asking for donations for the indigent, "are there no poorhouses?" In other words, "hasn't government taken care of this problem?"

That strikes me as a European attitude, but, I'm afraid, more and more an American attitude. We Americans seem to be turning into a bunch of Bertie Woosters, and government is our Jeeves, choosing our clothes, arranging our lives, drawing our baths, and leaving us to make the inconsequential decision about when to squeeze our rubber ducky.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

One other thing about Nate's choice. He may not be able to get an individual policy at all later. Private insurtance is not required to accept everybody. So they may evaluate Nate and decide not to insure him at all when he decides to get insurance. This is the gaping hole in US health care. Should statisically sicker peple pay more? Yes. But if no insurer will maintain a high-priced high risk pool, access becomes meaningless...

This bites particular hard on older people who have been laid off and have exhausted their COBRA benefits. They may have paid in for 20 or 30 years to a group policy tied to a job, but having lost the job, find themselves antiselected out of any health care policies at all...

Well, that's Nate's choice. I expect he's willing to live with it. I'm familiar with that mindset because I have a son who shares it.

You are right about the COBRA thing. But it seems to me that particular problem is something different. Nate's on the outside because he's willing to take the risk. The laid off guy is on the outside despite being willing to have insurance. I have a brother in that situation.

I have a theory that the people who want a government based health system are really people who trust top down systems over bottom up ones. They believe that they can impose order on the messiness of life, and think that government is the tool that will provide that order.

But my experience tells me that it is always better to have more than one place you can go to get things done. So I'm not all that certain that the US health "system" is necessarily all that bad.

Sure, Nate might fall through a crack some day. It's called "liberty." And we will take care of my brother, one way or another. It's called "family." And I, personally, value both of those things more than I value what government offers, which is the enemy of liberty and family, and is called "security," but inevitably turns into "tyranny."

[thibaulthalpern]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

I failed to note: I'm particularly interested in other's perspectives both on Carnegie's advice w.r.t. charity and also on the topic of private charity vs. government action. All you Europeans out there need to enlighten me as to why your way is best! (or at least try to politely explain why you see things differently).

Xenophon

All I can say is I went to Carnegie Mellon :-) I loved the University. And we don't hyphenate Carnegie Mellon though you may see it in some official seals etc. where it remains.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Sure, Nate might fall through a crack some day. It's called "liberty." And we will take care of my brother, one way or another. It's called "family." And I, personally, value both of those things more than I value what government offers, which is the enemy of liberty and family, and is called "security," but inevitably turns into "tyranny."

I don't understand what you mean by that. Could you give us an example of a public healthcare system that is a "tyranny", please?

[zerospinboson]

In the arena of charity, which started the thread, reports concerning the relative charitable giving of conservatives and liberals appear to show that conservatives give more to charity than liberals, primarily because liberals believe that their taxes include their charitable giving - which might be part of the reason liberals tolerate higher taxes than conservatives. And which probably accounts for the fact that our esteemed vice-president gave less than $4000 to charity, total, over the last ten years. Averaging under 400 bucks a year.

OTOH, those conservatives will probably give it to some silly religious charity that I don't approve of at all (because, say, it promulgates the idiotic idea that you should not know about prophylactics, as you're supposed to "stay clean until marriage". That's money spent on something that actually bothers me. Although G.W. one-upped that by letting the federal govt pay for efforts to spread religious dogmas known to not work.), so why would that impress me? I'd rather they wouldn't have given those charities money. And 1/3 of total donations goes to "religious charities". Sure, not all of them are as radical as these, but I'd prefer it if it went to charities that were a little less partisan.

Originally Posted by Harmon

I have a theory that the people who want a government based health system are really people who trust top down systems over bottom up ones. They believe that they can impose order on the messiness of life, and think that government is the tool that will provide that order.

But my experience tells me that it is always better to have more than one place you can go to get things done. So I'm not all that certain that the US health "system" is necessarily all that bad.

Sorry, but how many of those "top-down" systems have you personally experienced? (I'm not sure that description really captures it the difference in mindset, though; your country is, as I see it, one of the few democratic countries where fear of the government is institutionalized. Did you ever wonder if that doesn't force the individual bureaucrats that make up the government to believe that they should behave like that? It seems rather like a system that perpetuates itself, and I'm not sure what it is you gain.)

Uninteresting sidenote/corrolary: It's not like the states are really what you invest in emotionally either, so why is the federal govt so much scarier?

Sure, Nate might fall through a crack some day. It's called "liberty."

I doubt that "liberty" is synonymous to what we call "bad government policy", so there must be something wrong with this statement.

And we will take care of my brother, one way or another. It's called "family." And I, personally, value both of those things more than I value what government offers,

I see. So you don't think you would be at all resentful if he were to cause you, say, 100k$ in medical debt? You would still call it his "right choice to have made"? Or would you lay into him for forcing you to choose between paying an idiotic sum, or letting him die? And even if you are able to afford that easily, I'm fairly sure most of your country's inhabitants aren't. What are they supposed to do when their brother is in trouble? Let him die 15 years early, saying "he should've known better" or "he took a gamble and he lost"? Because in that case I don't see why the same doesn't also apply to your brother's case.

which is the enemy of liberty and family, and is called "security," but inevitably turns into "tyranny."

Yes, as I mentioned under my first bit: "Govt is scary". Didn't you ever wonder what governments behave like that haven't been raised with 200 years of this silly fear-mongering? It's not as though govt is a separate entity; it's being run by people who have also been raised and indoctrinated with the thought that govt is bad, or alternatively, that govt is much maligned and should be resentful of that. Seems like a neat self-fulfilling prophecy anyway. Anyway, I dare you to name an example, beside (economically downtrodden) Italy and Germany in the 1930s, of a democratic society where this inevitable thing has come to pass.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by Harmon

...
That strikes me as a European attitude, but, I'm afraid, more and more an American attitude
....

You seem to imply that there is something wrong with this attitude - and you forget what we pay in taxes. You also seem to imply that there is something inherently noble and right about giving money to charity, and especially doing it personally. Why? And why is that better than if the goverment do it? It strikes me as better if you can make a more focused and common effort than having charities essentially competing.

I expect my goverment, especially those I voted for, to represent me. That also includes that they may need to make decisions that I do not personally like, but will benefit the society that I am a part of in the long run.

[HarryT]

The attitude that "the government is my enemy and is trying to harm me" does seem to be a uniquely American perspective (not one, I know, which all Americans share!). I've often seen it expressed by Americans, but never by a European. We may not always agree with what our governments do, but I don't think that any of us actually believe that our government is actively trying to harm us.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The attitude that "the government is my enemy and is trying to harm me" does seem to be a uniquely American perspective (not one, I know, which all Americans share!). I've often seen it expressed by Americans, but never by a European. We may not always agree with what our governments do, but I don't think that any of us actually believe that our government is actively trying to harm us.

Good point. I never really thought about it, but I think you may be right. I donot necessarily always agree with my government, but they represent us and are - ideally - 'us'. And I'm glad it's not everyone in this country who actually run it, it's certainly not everyone who is up for the task

[Gomoto]

Liberty is not enough! Let´s strive for freedom.

[thomasmorus]

Hello Xenophone and all others

As someone who has lived on both side of the Atlantik I would say there are quite a few differences between Europa and the US. Also and this is often ovrlooked their is also quite a difference between the anglophile contries (like UK, USA, CAN, AUS) and the countinatal european countries as our Political/legal systems are based on diffiernet histories. Please excuse any spelling errors, as I am German English is only my second lenaguage

So lets see the main differnce:

Social Enviroment:
if you use a scale from "Manchester" Capitalism to communism and you put Capitalism to the left and communism to the right you will see the US an this scale a lot nearer the left end as the european countries, wheras the UK as more on the capitalism side then most continatal european countires.
We in Germany see a lot of things you would see fall under Charity as basic right s of the individual whereas the state has to provide this services to fullfill its function in socity:
These are
health care
higher education
housing
public transportation
care for the elderly

to name the most important. Also different european countries have solved the problem difeerntly wheras for example UK uses a state run health care system, D & F uses a insurance based system and other countries some mix

Legal system: Here you hav a main differnce between the US/UK and continatal europa: The US/UK system is based on common law and and advisary system wheras the continatal european system is based on Roman law and codifiaction (especially code napoleon) and much less advisory based, wheras the judge has a lot more influence in the fact finding!

lets see the difference in work, ethnics , religion, sexulality, also n the things commonly named under "Quality of living"

Leisure time is higher in europa - As i see it its a thing called live to work v. work to live. we (as europeans mostly prefer to work less for also some less mony. Also there is not so high preassure to earn more to provide for your familie (see health care, education)

Religion/ ethnics
Europa and the us are quit differntly concerning religous belive , especilly shown in the last two decades wheras the religous right had quit some influnece in the us. here theire influence is quite low- as you can see in the laws concerning homosecuall marraige, abortion, sexual education

Also some kind of "ethnics" dont translate relly well. See especially the questions concering Work space code of conduct wheras some US based companies had there code of conducts thrown out by court as these were incombatible with the privacy laws in most european countries ( like monitoring of work, personal releatoionships between emplyeees and so on)
A nice example here is the German military and women: Germany barred Women from all military duties involing weopans which was practically from all areas. This law was through out by the EU Court. Then Garmny did a 180 and opend all areas to woman, therefore now youhave ome pilots (as in the US ) and also women Tank commanders. At this time the German military imposed a rules similar to the US concerning relationships between the man and women, along the guidelines of the US rules. After I year it was quite clear, did not work. Wwhat was the reaction: Tribunals??. No basically the military through out all the rules and found: Whatever there Personal was doing of duty was of no concern of the military, but Please when you are of duty in the fileds, do not make to much noise as not to disturb your neighbours.

Also the etnics theme is quite stronng inouther areas without the "Religous arguments" The debate in stem cell resarch is still raging also the quetions to gen manipulation of crops. Here is also one more area where there is quite a difference between US and Europa: We are much more hesitant to employ ne technologie especially in the biological fields

Also concernng ethnics is differnt approch to drugs and crime:
Drug users are sen as Ill not criminals therfore the incariation rates in europa are quite lower then in the US. Also as you might no one mayor factor of membership in the Eu is ethe ablosihment of the death penalty. Yo also can see that the sentences are mostly lower in Europa the in the US. For example in Germany the Supreme court hs decided that everybody has to have some kid of hope to leacve the prison otherwise his/her basic human rights would be vuiolated as stated in artivcle on othe the German costitution" Die Würde des Mensche ist Unantastbar" - "Human dignity is inviolable." Which means even I live sentence in Germany means between 15-35 years
Also quit differnt is the laws concerning youth criminals: Till 14 people are seen as children and cannot be brought befor a court - even for killing somebody. Between 14 and at least 18 (depending on circumstnace this range can be extended but not shortend) they are youthfull ofnders with a max. incaration of 10 years

So thats is it for my first run

[thomasmorus]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Certainly.

Sorry this is not the purpose of the Goverment! The purpose of the Goverment is to hold up rules and to proviede the system wheras socity can umfold itslef. If this includes Basic ervices and the things you call "Nanny Goverment" is open to debatte wheras there is a wide area from an all runing goverment (Communisim) to a night watchman goverment (pure capitalism) Both extrma ave never been tried.
As to the Human rights- 100 years ago the term did not really come to play, 200 years ago black peolpe where not seen as humnas, 300 years ago the term was not existing. So as it has not existed we should not use it and not expand it???
As for me basic living conditons, health care and education are part of humean rights and have to be provided by the state. by the way i have no problem playing my taxes for this - and I am earing around 6figures

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't understand what you mean by that. Could you give us an example of a public healthcare system that is a "tyranny", please?

I'd suggest the NHS would qualify - e.g. their approach to co-payments.

"Many other patients have suffered as a result of the NHS not allowing co-payments – this being where a patient seeks to pay privately for a drug which is not funded by the NHS, whilst continuing to receive the basic NHS package of care.
But this is not allowed: if patients want to top up their care, Government policy means the NHS withdraws all free treatment."

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I'd suggest the NHS would qualify - e.g. their approach to co-payments.

"Many other patients have suffered as a result of the NHS not allowing co-payments – this being where a patient seeks to pay privately for a drug which is not funded by the NHS, whilst continuing to receive the basic NHS package of care.
But this is not allowed: if patients want to top up their care, Government policy means the NHS withdraws all free treatment."

I saw a news article recently, Sparrow, suggesting that this practice either had now been changed, or was in the process of being changed. I agree with you that it is unjust.

[thomasmorus]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

And yet the US has a higher per capita GDP than any country in Europe except Norway, Luxembourg, and Lichtenstein without having your healthcare system.

Only depending on the methode of calculation. And in most european counties the quality of living indicator is higher or at the same level as in the us.

The problem with the GDP is for example tht unproductiv parts are also part of it. The US has a 50% higher military expendures- which also moves the GDP higher. Also a lot of the GDP of the US is borrowoed as the high double deficit shows whreas in most europen contryies the natinl savinf as shown in the Saving rates is higher then the national dept!!