That was Ron Reagan, the former President's son. :blush:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Printable View
That was Ron Reagan, the former President's son. :blush:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Ah. I feel fairly certain that I heard the quote attributed to Ronald, because I remember thinking at the time that Ronald Reagan would have been hard pressed to make such a statement due to the timing (Bush was probably still an obnoxious drunk while Reagan was in office for his first term). Perhaps I heard Ronald when it was actually Ron, or perhaps I heard the quote misattributed. It's still a pretty funny thing to say, regardless of who said it, and about whom.
The pineapple quote was never actually recorded, but it sounds right. Here's a relevant quote, which is probably as accurate as anybody will ever get:
If I had said something like that, I would certainly want it to be recorded properly.Quote:
"Asked for President Reagan’s reaction after winning a hard-fought 1981 vote in Congress authorizing the sale of AWACS planes to Saudi Arabia, the White House aide Michael Deaver told reporters the president exclaimed, 'Thank God!' What Reagan actually said, according to someone in the room, was, 'I feel like I’ve just crapped a pineapple.'”
Abhijit,
The Arkansas Reference.. How would I explain.. I guess you can say we have our own English, and no Teacher is going to tell us proper.. When we're young and stupid that is. When we grow up we realize we should have paid more attention.
Alright, A while back you referenced that we had dealt with Mao Tse Tung. I assumed as some sort of Moral Relativism reference. Maybe I read it wrong. It stayed with me, and I looked into it and read the guys Bio. We sided with the opposition Party and tried getting them to talk and stop the Bloodshed. We lost and those guys ended up Fleeing to Tiawan which is why we have some sort of unspoken defense pact. Mao is the reason both my Grandfathers were in Korea. My family and my Country have been fighting the Communist forever it seems, and I'm supposed to be ok with 2 or 3 in the Whitehouse? Communism is Death and Destructions.
As far as Bush being a Drunk. I suppose only Liberals are allowed to change their ways and be honored for it. At least Bush didn't Drive off a Peir and Kill someone.
Bedroom. I draw the Line at Insest and a few other things. Come to think of it. Your whole saying about a no Moral Society whatever. Most if not all Laws are based on Some sort of Morality. Should we just abolish all Laws?
All that petre dish parenting and Bio Weapons programs. It probably is coming, but i'm not sure I want clones and stuff running around. I wouldn't want to be born with no Parents or Grandparents. What would be the Point? Harvesting for Body Parts? Being Slaves?
Healthcare. First off the Government is allowing the cost to rise by not combatting fraud probably on purpose so they have an excuse to take it over and enslave us. If we could putchase Healthcare over state lines and foster a little competition would help but they're against that too on purpose I suppose. They're all about the interstate commerce clause when it suits them. Tort Reform. That is a huge cost probably the single best thing they could do. That's if they were interested in anything other than their agenda. You guys are amazing.. I'd rather the mean ol Insurance companies tell grandma she has to die than the Government. That would mean our Gov is no better than the Communist Regimes that do it every day. Ohh I forget there is no Bad, Good, or Evil. It's just.. Who's John Galt.
I'd have to look back through the last two pages to find the reference to Mao, and I don't want to. I don't think we ever worked with Mao during WWII, and I don't know the history after that. However, we did work with the other guy, and I assume that is what you were reading about. If you look into the history of Stilwell in China during WWII, you can see that Chiang Kai-Shek (or however you spell that) was no prize. He basically kept blackmailing the US to supply him with weapons to keep him in the war against Japan, but he never used the weapons against Japan. Instead, he stockpiled them for use in internal political squabbles (that seem to be decided by the rule: 'He who has the most toys wins.'). Had he been a leader, we would have a considerably different relationship with China today (as well as avoiding the Korean War, most likely). We certainly backed him, he just wasn't worth backing. Meanwhile, Mao fought against the Japanese, and was occasionally successful. We couldn't have made a different choice, but the choice we made did not turn out very well.
I am also deeply ambivalent about the petri dish biology. Its time is now, and we have not looked into the ethics sufficiently. The potential impact on society is not just large, but unexplored. "O brave new world, that has such people in it."
Don't believe in "reducing fraud and waste", no matter who says it. That mantra has only been in vogue for the last three decades (I think). You hear it at state and federal level whenever a politician wants to gin up some savings when none are available. Cutting fraud and waste comes at a cost, and you have to make a hard-nosed assesment as to whether the cost of curbing what abuse is there is greater than the cost of allowing it.
I liked the interstate competition component that the Rs wanted in health care, until I saw the downside. To see what can go wrong, just look at credit cards. A large majority of credit card issuers are based in S. Dakota. Why? Because S. Dakota has lax oversight laws. The same would happen to health insurance. All companies would move to the state with the weakest laws. The sate would benefit from the influx of good paying jobs, and the health insurance industry would benefit from being allowed more predatory practices with less oversight. The only losers would be the people. There are ways to prevent this loophole. If the Rs dealt with it effectively, their position would be more appealing to me. Otherwise....it is counterproductive.
Tort reform is an obvious one. However, I have loads of friends who got ignored by insurance companies until they threatened to lawyer up. Some companies are good because most people are good. Unfortunately, plenty of companies determine that they are better off withholding payment because some people won't seek legal action. If legal action is prevented or ineffective, then those companies will abuse the holy heck out of people. There are frivolous lawsuits, and a certain amount of tort reform, such as a cap on damages, or a penalty for a suit that is frivolous (perhaps if it goes to court, then both sides would be defendents), but that's not what I am hearing from the R proposal. Actually, I'm hearing nothing other than the phrase "tort reform" from the R proposal.
My point with health care, ultimately, is this: Health care was essentially ineffective until 100 years ago. Hospitals were the poor persons waiting room for the graveyard, as few people were ever cured of anything serious (rich folks died at home). Health insurance came about during the depression or WWII, primarily as a sales tactic to get people to seek more medical treatment. If the cost for a procedure was really high, and not all that effective, people would treat it the same way they would treat buying a new car: If they could afford it, they'd do it, otherwise they'd delay. Insurance was a means of spreading the payment out into small monthly chunks so that people would not see the cost as one big lump sum, and would be more likely to use it. Then, in WWII, when wages were frozen for the war effort, and companies couldn't compete by wage inflation, the companies began offering health benefits in place of wages. After the war, tax law was changed to say that health benefit offerings were non-taxable, which made them a highly attractive form of compensation for companies and individuals. Of course, health care was still relatively cheap, and largely ineffective by todays standards.
You and I have grown up in a time when health care was highly effective, and is becoming more and more effective with each new development. Now the cost of procedures is sky high and rising. I just went to see a doctor about a problem with my foot. I wasn't sure what it was, but having dropped both a rock and a 45lb weight on my foot in the last two months, I figured it could be anything from nothing to cancer. As it turned out, my options were:
1) Do nothing. The problem was 99% likely to be insignificant, and it might or might not get better on its own.
2) A cheap procedure that would be far more accurate, but had an only moderate chance of success.
3) An MRI, which would cost thousands, be 100% accurate, and would have no other impact.
4) Surgery, which would cost thousands, be 100% accurate, and would have a high chance of curing the problem.
I opted for #1. However, all of these options cost about the same for me, as I have reasonably good insurance. The best analogy I have heard is to consider what you would do if food was handled like health insurance. Suppose your employer entered into a contract with the local grocery store such that you could only shop for groceries there, but you would only pay a flat (and minimal) cost, and could take anything you wanted. I don't know what you would do, but I'd be eating lots more fish. Part of my diet is determined by what I like, part by what is healthy, and part by the cost. Take the cost part out of the equation, and there are loads of items that I really like, and which are quite healthy...but they cost quite a bit more than what I eat now.
Then imagine that the grocery store began stocking the shelves with the occasional gold bar.
This is pretty much the health care situation that most people engaged in the debate grew up in. We have a feeling that the way it is, is the way it has always been. That's not true. Effective health care is barely 100 years old. Expensive health care is far younger. Yet it is easy to see the trend. X-rays were all that were around when I was growing up. They are cheap, but they are also only effective for certain types of injuries. MRIs are massively expensive, and massively useful, but they have only been around for a few decades. What will come along next? That I can't say, but I can assure you that it will have a computer interface, and be exorbitantly expensive, all else is in doubt.
My basic view is that the cost of health care procedures will keep rising. If people get whatever they want for the same flat fee, they will tend to ask for increasingly expensive alternatives, and the cost of health care will keep rising. Who caps it? It doesn't matter. If increasingly effective health care is created, but at costs that rise as they have been rising. Eventually, every extraneous profit has to be squeezed out of the system, which includes health insurance companies, and any other middle men that exist. None of that will fix anything, though, so eventually we will reach a level where your life can be extended to hundreds of years, but only at a cost that can be born by an increasingly tiny percentage of the population. This will lead to the point where the super rich are exceedingly long lived, and the rest of us are explicitly left to die once we have reached some fixed limit on the amount we can spend. The trend lines suggest that that day is coming (in a few decades, to be sure, not immediately). None of the proposals deal with that in any way, nor is there a solution. The current proposals only attempt to put off that day when society must deal with an unsustainable cost.
Yes i agree, this is very possible.Quote:
This will lead to the point where the super rich are exceedingly long lived, and the rest of us are explicitly left to die once we have reached some fixed limit on the amount we can spend.
There could be a new class separation based on how long you can afford to live !!
Lol, yea, right , it was NATO with the force of the Americans that came a-bombing. That's exactly when things got sorted out in a jiffy wasn't it?Quote:
(apart from Milosovic which us lot in Europe did eventually sort out) !!!
You can pretend all your European negotiations and plea deals work, the fact is, the only reason Sebia and Russia didn't smack you Europeans silly is because you have a huge Western power like the US to back you up.
It's easy to say you have taken the high road, when you have a buddy who is willing to take the low road for you.
We were actually doing pretty well until you lot decided that the only action was to bomb the hell out of everyone, Its estimated that the Nato Bombing campaign killed more innocent people then the actual conflict itself.Quote:
You can pretend all your European negotiations and plea deals work, the fact is, the only reason Sebia and Russia didn't smack you Europeans silly is because you have a huge Western power like the US to back you up.
Are you kidding here ? Serbia never had anyway near enough military power to bother any of the major European countries, the reason that we hadn't bombed or intervened earlier (rightly or wrongly) is that this was an internal War and strictly speaking it was Illegal to intervene.Quote:
You can pretend all your European negotiations and plea deals work, the fact is, the only reason Sebia and Russia didn't smack you Europeans silly is because you have a huge Western power like the US to back you up.
Russia is another thing altogether but they didn't really care one way or another, and certainly were not a reason that we didn't go to war.
No its easy to take the Low Road, that's the point, it very easy to say there's the enemy lets blow the hell out of them, but it doesn't always work, look at Vietnam look at Afghanistan.Quote:
It's easy to say you have taken the high road, when you have a buddy who is willing to take the low road for you.
Anyway why take 1 small comment out of context and pick on that, my point was about inconsistency of policy. If the Iraq War was about removing a Dictator then why aren't we currently at War with Burma or North Korea for instance ?
North Korea are much more Dangerous then Iraq ever was.
Estimated, eh? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
Vietnam (and soon Afghanistan) proved that any war can be lost if you allow it to be administered by people who insist "the war is lost" and backed up by talking heads who tell us we are losing despite the actual events on the battlefield that prove otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
Do you believe Vietnam was winnable? Under what definition of "win"?Quote:
Originally Posted by homer13j
See? You actually still think you were accomplishing something by carrying on pointless meetings.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
It was illegal, yet the Europeans still did it. How strange how that judgement changes depending on whose doing what eh?Quote:
Are you kidding here ? Serbia never had anyway near enough military power to bother any of the major European countries, the reason that we hadn't bombed or intervened earlier (rightly or wrongly) is that this was an internal War and strictly speaking it was Illegal to intervene.
With economic support from Russia, the Serbs could have rolled over any mainland European country. None have a meaningful standing army with any recent military experience.You didn't go to war because without NATO, Russia would have no reason to not cut off your gas supplies, or hike them 1000%, hold a gun to your head, all the while selling nukes to Serbia. Wait, Putin is doing that as we speak. Well, maybe your leaders should sit down with Putin and tell him your friends again, because he didn't get the message the first 50 times!Quote:
Russia is another thing altogether but they didn't really care one way or another, and certainly were not a reason that we didn't go to war.
It irks me that liberal Europeans do not realize their very existence and freedoms are only afforded by the actions of a Western superpower willing to fight for the Western world. All the while, the liberal European will daily denounce that power as an illogical rogue state, undermining, and hazardous to the peace of the world. As I said, it is easy to take the high road (talk the talk) if you have someone to take the low road for you (walk the walk).Quote:
Anyway why take 1 small comment out of context and pick on that, my point was about inconsistency of policy. If the Iraq War was about removing a Dictator then why aren't we currently at War with Burma or North Korea for instance ?
No. Not because it wasn't possible, but because our own political leaders were far more worried about polls, approval ratings and relentless chanting throngs of pissed-off hippies than actually getting the job done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
During the Tet Offensive the Viet Cong threw everything they had at us and failed miserably losing more than 45,000 troops in the process. Hindsight being what it is we now know that an immediate and thorough counteroffensive could have easily delivered the knockout punch and toppled the North Vietnamese government. That would be my definition of "win." But it did not and was not allowed to happen for purely political reasons.
Throw in the fact that our own news media was lying to us all along. The "most trusted" anchor Cronkite told us following Tet: "Who won and who lost in the great Tet offensive against the cities? I'm not sure. The Vietcong did not win by a knockout, but neither did we. The referees of history may make it a draw." Sure, it was pure BS, but it worked. It turned public opinion solidly against the war and eventually gave the hippies exactly what they wanted: a humiliating defeat for the US.
Today we have elected idiots like Harry Reid openly cheering for another humiliating defeat for the US.
Irksome, yes, but not at all hard to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
European history is full of war and bloodshed that culminated in the two biggest, bloodiest wars in human history inside of three decades. After the second time the US decided Europe could not be trusted to behave themselves so we left a few divisions behind in western Europe to ensure they would play nice together while the Soviets did the same to eastern Europe with the added bonus of instituting communist oppression. Western Europe was quite happy to be relieved of the burden of maintaining standing armies, navies, defense perimeters, etc, but was not happy about the ensuing cold war as peace and stability became the two most important things in the European mind. The cold war standoff was the single biggest threat to peace in Europe. Western Europe could not control what the Soviets did, so they tried their best to influence America...
I remember distinctly when President Reagan gave his famous speech at the Brandenburg Gate calling on the Soviets to "tear down this wall" it sent western Europe into conniptions. Reagan's words were considered to be "inflammatory" and "destabilizing" yet it was those very words that started the chain of events that ended with the fall of that wall and eventually communism itself. Today Reagan is barely mentioned at all during the 20th anniversary celebrations marking the end of the German divide because they just might have to admit he was right about the Soviets all along.
Fast-forward to 2004. Europe saw the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan as yet another threat to their own peace and stability. They desperately want a say in US policy to prevent such threats and they get rather agitated when we don't listen. They don't realize (or want to acknowledge) the fact that they have been lecturing us for 200+ years on how we're "doing it all wrong" and like you would do with a nagging wife who won't shut up we Americans have learned to simply tune out whenever the lectures begin yet again.
THIS is what pisses off Europe.
Err No actually i think you will find that it was the US that started the Bombing.Quote:
It was illegal, yet the Europeans still did it.
Hmmm, Russia were never going support the Serbians in war against any other European country. The Russians really have no interest in going to war with there neighbours who they do most of there business with, And i think you will find that the UK army had plenty of Experience if you care to look it up.Quote:
With economic support from Russia, the Serbs could have rolled over any mainland European country. None have a meaningful standing army with any recent military experience.
Russia might be supplying more and more Gas to Europe now but i think you will find that at the time of the war in the UK we were still mainly reliant upon our own North Sea oil and Gas supplies. Yes the are now running out but that is well after the conflict.Quote:
You didn't go to war because without NATO, Russia would have no reason to not cut off your gas supplies
At no point has Russia sold any nuclear weapons to Serbia nor were they ever likely to unless they wanted to start World War 3.Quote:
all the while selling nukes to Serbia
It Irks me that so many Americans actually believe that bull.Quote:
It irks me that liberal Europeans do not realize their very existence and freedoms are only afforded by the actions of a Western superpower willing to fight for the Western world.
God that's as strange a bastardisation of European History as i have heard.Quote:
European history is full of war and bloodshed that culminated in the two biggest, bloodiest wars in human history inside of three decades. After the second time the US decided Europe could not be trusted to behave themselves so we left a few divisions behind in western Europe to ensure they would play nice together while the Soviets did the same to eastern Europe with the added bonus of instituting communist oppression. Western Europe was quite happy to be relieved of the burden of maintaining standing armies, navies, defense perimeters, etc, but was not happy about the ensuing cold war as peace and stability became the two most important things in the European mind. The cold war standoff was the single biggest threat to peace in Europe. Western Europe could not control what the Soviets did, so they tried their best to influence America...
I suspect the 1 singular difference between Europe and the US is the US has never been involved in a Conflict in the own country. Have your country blown to sh*t a few times an then see if that does not concentrate the minds of people not to want it to happen again.
I think you would see a distinct change in attitude of peoples support for War if you had experienced a couple on your own doorstep.
No you don't get it at all do you, you really don't understand Europeans if you think that, and to talk of us as 1 entity is just strange Europe consists of nearly 50 countries do you really think that they are all the same ??Quote:
Fast-forward to 2004. Europe saw the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan as yet another threat to their own peace and stability. They desperately want a say in US policy to prevent such threats and they get rather agitated when we don't listen. They don't realize (or want to acknowledge) the fact that they have been lecturing us for 200+ years on how we're "doing it all wrong" and like you would do with a nagging wife who won't shut up we Americans have learned to simply tune out whenever the lectures begin yet again.
Oh and i think you will find that most European countries saw the US led invasion of Iraq as entirely unnecessary. Only the UK supported you and in the End it cost Tony Blair his job as there was an incredibly small amount of public support for it in the UK.Quote:
Fast-forward to 2004. Europe saw the US invasion of Iraq
The war in Afghanistan is different, and as i have stated earlier in this very article if we had not gone to Iraq at all (which would have been sensible) and concentrated in Afghanistan then maybe thing wouldn't be such a mess there now.
Afghanistan and northern Pakistan and the Taliban was always the problem and i find it amazing that anyone at all thinks that we actually achieved something in Iraq other then the largely symbolic capture of Saddam.
Do you actually believe that we are 'Winning' in Afghanistan ?Quote:
Vietnam (and soon Afghanistan) proved that any war can be lost if you allow it to be administered by people who insist "the war is lost" and backed up by talking heads who tell us we are losing despite the actual events on the battlefield that prove otherwise.
NSA, I agree with almost all of what you're saying but, because I'm an utter pedant where history's concerned, I had to take issue with this:-
America has actually fought several conflicts on it's own soil, though not in recent history. Also, us Brits haven't really fought on our own soil since 1066 unless you include civil wars and the glorious revolution (I'm including the Irish troubles under 'civil wars') so I'm not sure that's where the difference in attitude comes from. I would point out the historical innaccuracies in Homer and Nema's posts but I wouldn't know where to start and I only get an hour for lunch:rolleyes:.Quote:
I suspect the 1 singular difference between Europe and the US is the US has never been involved in a Conflict in the own country.
Historically the US was extremely reticent about getting into wars until the last century and it was only really WW2 that changed that stance (arguably it was actually the cold war that followed than WW2 itself which they only entered under duress) because that's when it became obvious that, in the modern world, there really isn't such a thing as 'someone elses conflict'. We all end up being affectde in some way by any conflict in the world. Personally I think that's a damn good argument for not starting any.
Although i hate to argue with someone that agrees with me i just had to respond to this.
Yes thats true but they were basically civil wars, and not in the era of modern warfareQuote:
America has actually fought several conflicts on it's own soil, though not in recent history.
Ah Yes you are right technically, although as they were talking about Europe as one entity so was i.Quote:
Also, us Brits haven't really fought on our own soil since 1066 unless you include civil wars
Here i will quote myself -As you can see i did say Europe rather then the UK (disclosure i am also a pedant :))Quote:
I suspect the 1 singular difference between Europe and the US is the US has never been involved in a Conflict in the own country
What exactly is "bull" about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
It is wrong? Is it inaccurate? What is your problem with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
I was referring to western Europe, pretty much all countries of which have placed peace and stability above all else and will do almost anything to insure it.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
And I'm not knocking Europe or Europeans - I'm merely trying to say that Europe has become vehemently anti-war precisely because of their violent, bloody history. Was I not clear about this? Or if you believe I am wrong, tell me why.
Agreed...Quote:
Yes thats true but they were basically civil wars, and not in the era of modern warfare
Agreed...Quote:
Ah Yes you are right technically, although as they were talking about Europe as one entity so was i.
And Agreed:afrog: but it is fun isn't it?Quote:
disclosure i am also a pedant
I was really just highlighting that the difference in attitude probably hasn't come from a difference in the number of wars fought in home territory or otherwise over the last century or two. In fact, the relative positions switched last century. America used to avoid wars like the plague and Europe used to get into a barney at the drop of a hat.
I think Europe probably did develop a love of peace post WW2 and during the cold war but, to be honest, so did America. Both threw themselves into the founding of the UN etc because we all wanted to avoid world conflicts.
Thinking about it, America's warlike attitude is really a product of the last 3 decades. And that's only if you include the Serbian and Bosnian conflict which did actually have quite a lot of support in Europe. I think you can pretty much write that one off as an abberation. To me, the warlike attitude we're seeing from the US lately is a product almost solely of 9/11. I think it's starting to dwindle pretty fast too, which is a good thing. I see far fewer Americans rattling their sabres now than I did 5 years ago.
YesQuote:
It is wrong?
YesQuote:
Is it inaccurate?
That it's wrong and innacurate.Quote:
What is your problem with it?
So what is your definition of victory? I have read a fair amount about Tet, and it crushed the Viet Cong, but not the North Vietnamese army. I have never heard anybody suggesting that the north would have quit the fight because of that, but even if that's true, is your definition of victory simply "hanging on until the other one bows out"? Would that really have resulted in a better outcome than what we have now? The south vietnamese govenrment was no prize by any standards. Had we hung on until the north quit, and ended up with a Korea-like solution, we would have been left supporting a corrupt, despotic, dysfunctional, regime, and would probably still be over there with military and economic support, propping up a dubious state with a dubious government in an economic backwater. How would that be an improvement? Would that mean that the USSR would not be quite as powerful today as they currently are? No, the USSR collapsed anyways. Would Vietnam have made peace with it's historic enemy China? Not very likely. More likely, we would have been sucked into the Khmer Rouge fight in Cambodia, just as the Vietnamese were.Quote:
Originally Posted by homer13j
We got the best possible outcome. The only way it would have been better is if Truman hadn't tried to return Vietnam to French control so that we avoided the whole war.
Actually, that's not at all true. Our Civil War, though it was over 150 years back, still influences us today. The divisions and scars have not disappeared, and keep bubbling back up. What we seem to lack is both an understanding of how much the causes of the Civil War are currently affecting us, and the empathy to recognize that the same will happen in other countries for conflicts that large and divisive.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
Interestingly, in the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, documents are coming out showing that the US, along with many western European countries, had deep misgivings about the re-unification of Germany, and the pace of change. Bush (the elder) tried to get together with the remains of the USSR to slow down the re-unification. Therefore, it wasn't just Western Europe that went into conniptions over Reagan's rhetoric. Effectively, even Reagan did. He spoke as he did because he didn't expect his rhetoric to come true. When it did, the US feared the result as much as any other European country, and more than some of them.
Fair enough, it was just a supposition anyway so i will agree with you on this :DQuote:
I was really just highlighting that the difference in attitude probably hasn't come from a difference in the number of wars fought in home territory or otherwise over the last century or two
I have to agree with FunkyDexter, because it is both wrong and inaccurate, and this is the main bit that is both wrong and inaccurate !!Quote:
It is wrong? Is it inaccurate? What is your problem with it?
Quote:
After the second time the US decided Europe could not be trusted to behave themselves so we left a few divisions behind in western Europe to ensure they would play nice together while the Soviets did the same to eastern Europe with the added bonus of instituting communist oppression. Western Europe was quite happy to be relieved of the burden of maintaining standing armies, navies, defense perimeters, etc, but was not happy about the ensuing cold war as peace and stability became the two most important things in the European mind. The cold war standoff was the single biggest threat to peace in Europe. Western Europe could not control what the Soviets did, so they tried their best to influence America...
I remember distinctly when President Reagan gave his famous speech at the Brandenburg Gate calling on the Soviets to "tear down this wall" it sent western Europe into conniptions. Reagan's words were considered to be "inflammatory" and "destabilizing" yet it was those very words that started the chain of events that ended with the fall of that wall and eventually communism itself. Today Reagan is barely mentioned at all during the 20th anniversary celebrations marking the end of the German divide because they just might have to admit he was right about the Soviets all along.
Fast-forward to 2004. Europe saw the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan as yet another threat to their own peace and stability. They desperately want a say in US policy to prevent such threats and they get rather agitated when we don't listen.
This is on the other hand is fairly true, especially The Germans and the French (fairly understandably)Quote:
And I'm not knocking Europe or Europeans - I'm merely trying to say that Europe has become vehemently anti-war precisely because of their violent, bloody history.
Us lot in the UK however still seem intent on joining in on all the major wars going.
Ahem yes well, i have just admitted i might be wrong on that one in my last post :)Quote:
Actually, that's not at all true.
Yes i have heard recently documents have come to light about Thatchers misgivings.Quote:
Interestingly, in the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, documents are coming out showing that the US, along with many western European countries, had deep misgivings about the re-unification of Germany
I suspect you will find in Europe at least it was the politicians doing the worrying, the ordinary people saw it as an historic occasion to be celebrated and possibly a new era in European history.
Shaggy, not sure if I'm reading you right but are you saying that the reservations about a unified Germany were rooted in America's experience of unification after a partition. If so I'm not sure I'd agree. I can remember reservations being expressed over here but they were rooted in the fact that... well...Unified Germany does have a bit of a bad record on the whole.
Hear Hear!Quote:
the ordinary people saw it as an historic occasion to be celebrated
Actually, in the case of Bush, he wanted to slow down the process. The process was unification, but it wasn't clear that he saw any particular threat in that, or had some other motivation. The detail was in the goal, not in the reasoning.
Yes, and the French and the British RAF just stumbled into Yugloslavic airspace, and accidentally ran over 2,000 sorties exploding thousands of munitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
Russia wouldn't war against Europe... they could just jerk Europe around like they do now. You can't put up an effective defense if you can't even secure your own energy. As far as my original comment about an army with experience, I think you'll find I stated 'mainland' European country - if you care to look it up.Quote:
Hmmm, Russia were never going support the Serbians in war against any other European country. The Russians really have no interest in going to war with there neighbours who they do most of there business with, And i think you will find that the UK army had plenty of Experience if you care to look it up.
Which is why the UK was free to think independently - without fear of economic repercussion the rest of Europe faced.Quote:
Russia might be supplying more and more Gas to Europe now but i think you will find that at the time of the war in the UK we were still mainly reliant upon our own North Sea oil and Gas supplies. We are now running out but that is well after the conflict.
You realize that was a hypothetical comment. Go ahead and re-read it.Quote:
At no point has Russia sold any nuclear weapons to Serbia nor were they ever likely to unless they wanted to start World War 3.
I will just allude that recent German and Italian interest in securing more advanced missile defense systems from the US is not coincidental.
This has been an excellent thread. But I have always been curious about the American health system. I can get private health insurance here for about $2 a day and you probably know what an Aussie dollar is worth. How much does it actually cost over there? And if I need an MRI scan I just walk into the nearest hospital and get it done for free. If I am not working the medications all only cost $5 and if I'm that sick I am unlikely to be working.
Yes i agree Russia wont war against Europe. Nice to have something we agree on hey :DQuote:
Russia wouldn't war against Europe... they could just jerk Europe around like they do now. You can't put up an effective defense if you can't even secure your own energy.
Russia does look after its own political interests agreed but to say that it is jerking Europe around in misleading. For Russia a strong Europe is actually in there interest as it directly affects there own economic development.
As for Energy security, well don't we all have issues ? The USA Imports 60% of its Oil is your Energy Secure ?
The recent issues with energy security are all to do with Russia's dispute with the Ukraine, however the nabucco pipeline being built to bring in competition from the middle east will fix a lot of these issues.
In fact the US has been involved in the Nabucco project as i am sure it would open up a new gas route for you too.
I don't think it's quite as simple as that, Russia cant just blackmail major European countries by threatening to cut of there Gas, Energy has not been used (so far at least) as a political tool for Russia against Western Europe it would be disastrous for them Economically, most of there money comes from Gas !Quote:
Which is why the UK was free to think independently - without fear of economic repercussion the rest of Europe faced.
Maybe i am missing something but ..Quote:
You realize that was a hypothetical comment. Go ahead and re-read it.
i don't see anything hypothetical about it, you state quite clearly Putin is doing this as we speak !Quote:
You didn't go to war because without NATO, Russia would have no reason to not cut off your gas supplies, or hike them 1000%, hold a gun to your head, all the while selling nukes to Serbia. Wait, Putin is doing that as we speak
http://metrogamer.files.wordpress.co...2/facepalm.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
Thanks for clearing that up. :rolleyes:
A respectable health insurance policy for a healthy 18 - 30 yo male non smoker can be purchased for around $300 USD per month. Of course, if you are poor and can not afford health care at all, the majority of the individual states welfare systems offer free coverage for basic preventative care and all emergency care.Quote:
Originally Posted by AsmIscool
MB, where did you get that figure? I couldn't buy health care for $300/month back when I was mid-20s (which was about 15 years back), despite being in perfect health. I also had to submit to blood screening for AIDS. On the other hand, I haven't been that age for fifteen years, and haven't tried to buy insurance in that time. What kind of coverage are you talking about? Good, or just catastrophic coverage?
Basically, if you have a pre-existing condition, you won't get coverage for any amount of money, which is what the AIDS test is about.
You can walk into any hospital and get treatment. The bill will be pretty stiff, even for a simple consultation (probably in the vicinity of $100 US, or that's what it appears to have been for any consultation I have had). An MRI scan will be over $1000. On the other hand, hospitals are not allowed to turn people away at the emergency room, and will treat major injuries to some reasonable extent. Who ends up paying depends on lots of factors.
I just renewed my Health Insurance and Life Insurance. All with the most expensive Options. $800 for the "YEAR" Combined. I was Airborne in the Military. My knees are shot, and I got an MRI last year, and 2 X-Rays for my ancles at different times. I guess I have a $100 deductible because I have to pay $100 per visit to the ER. Apparently it's Arthritis. Now I know and just go for the Ibuprofen. I could go to the VA, but I choose to leave that to the ones who need it. I am all about Socialism "IF" it is for the most needing among us. The people who fall through the Cracks. The Dems push for Gov control is down right Scary.. I wouldn't trust those fools to look at my Sock Drawer much less Arrange it, and they know most of us are this way or they wouldn't be completing Bills at 3am and signing them at 9. So much for Transparency. You guys are always saying the Republicans have no answers. Which is wrong, but as Americans we have to stop you guys' destruction first. Do no Damage.. It's some sort of Political Munchausen Syndrom. You Gremlins in the Basement bring the economy to it's knees and with your can't waste a good crisis mentality, hoodwink the Sheeples and the Ipodders with your Media wing propaganda. Then you say we're here to fix all this damage even though your the ones who caused it.
All you guys in Europe who love your Healthcare. It's fine now. Give it 50-100 years. Wait the corruption sets it, and it will. You will be the Eastern Block. Socialism always Fails when the Producers stop Producing, and the Moochers and the Looters prevail. You better hope America is still America. For who will free you from yourselves?
I absolutely love that sentence and I'm not being sarcastic. It's a perfect encapsulation of what socialism is meant to be about and describes my ideals utterly.Quote:
I am all about Socialism "IF" it is for the most needing among us
By the way, are you aware that you're pretty much advocating Marxism? Most people (Americans in particular, largely due to the baggage of the Cold War) think that Communism is all about a centralised totalitarian state because that's what actually got created by the Stalinists and Mauists.
Marx's vision, though, was of a system where government would primarily be carried out by collectives at a local level. This was good because it would mean that those who do the governing would be rubbing shoulders day to day with those they govern. It's much harder to exploit someone you meet twice a week down the local for a glass of vodka and a game of dominos. Because the collectives would be governing at a local level they would have been far better placed to recognise who were the most needy and who were the spongers. In fact you'd get far fewer spongers because they'd have to face those they were leeching off day to day. The same social pressures that keep the authority in line work on the individual too. Giving the whole 'from each according to their ability' bit a fair chance of succeeding.
Also, because government was so localised it would be relatively trivial for an individual collective to replace it's leaders and representatives if they were unsuitable - it's a throughly democratic system, possibly even more so that our own where an individual vote counts for almost nothing.
Marx acknowledged the need for a centralised authority but its role was to handle crises (which a totally decentralised system would be unable to do) and then hand power back to the decentralised collectives.
The problem is, of course, that both the major communist systems our world has seen were born out of crisis and revolution (and this is, perhaps, the only way a communist system can be born in reality). Meaning the centralised authority started by having the power and were predictably reticent about handing it over to the local collectives. In the case of the Russian revolution this defined the struggle between the Bolsheviks and the Menshaviks.
I've often wondered whether, if the Menshaviks had prevailed, we might have a far more positive view of Communism today. Probably not because, I suspect, that the first crisis that came along would start an inevitable slide toward centralisation but I'd be curious to find out.
Hey Tome10, nice to see you back in the thread !
The National Health Service in the UK was founded in 1948 that's over 60 years ago and it still standing, still working for all the people.Quote:
All you guys in Europe who love your Healthcare. It's fine now. Give it 50-100 years.
Some social policies can work, they just have to be done right. Maybe you feel that they wont in the US based on past actions of those in charge, well i cant comment on that because i haven't experienced it.
All i know is that with my partners condition (Rheumatoid Arthritis) life would be a whole lot harder without the NHS.
I have seen the survival rates for cancer inside the UK and it’s pretty scary, especially for the more prevalent cancers like prostate and breast cancer. I had heard that the NHS is one of the worlds largest employers, which means a high level of bureaucracy, which in turn means large scale waste and fraud go hand in hand as with any large government system. In the US Medicare system (our version of government health care) there was over 50 billion in waste last year alone, that we know about. Not very efficient.
I am sure the NHS is good enough for most people in the UK, but when you have cancer do you want good enough or do you want the best care in the world?
X
Where have you seen these figures ? if you look at Cancer Research UK's figures the current survival rate for Breast cancer is - 79% & for Prostate Cancer - 61%.Quote:
I have seen the survival rates for cancer inside the UK and it’s pretty scary, especially for the more prevalent cancers like prostate and breast cancer
Also virtually all the more common cancers have increased survival rates in recent years.
The main problem the NHS has with Cancer is the less common forms such as Pancreatic & Lung cancer where the survival rates are still low.
That is indeed the point, for most people it is good enough and it is free, which means that the poorest can actually get health care they otherwise would not be able to get.Quote:
I am sure the NHS is good enough for most people in the UK, but when you have cancer do you want good enough or do you want the best care in the world?
Also just because we have the NHS does not stop anyone taking out Private medical insurance with Bupa or one of the other private hospitals if they so wish.
In The USA the single biggest government department is the Department of Defence.Quote:
I had heard that the NHS is one of the worlds largest employers, which means a high level of bureaucracy, which in turn means large scale waste and fraud go hand in hand as with any large government system.
If the size of a government department is the only qualification for having a high level of bureaucracy does this mean that it is guilty of large scale waste & fraud also ?
It's also worth mentioning that it balooned when the government part privatised. The private companies and trusts have installed a masive bureaucratic and administrative burden because their customer wasn't the patient, it was the government, so there was no real incentive for them to keep things lean. They also negotiated ludicrously generous contracts with a government that was keen to off load the bill in the short term and didn't want to think about the long term impact.Quote:
I had heard that the NHS is one of the worlds largest employers
I said in a recent thread about this that both nationalised and privatised aproaches can work and have different flaws and merits. Just, for the love of God, don't go with a watered-down, half and half aproach. I personally think our NHS is pretty good (you guys in the States tend to get a pretty biased view of it by the time your media have spun it) but what problems it has are mostly rooted in the fact that we've slowly drifted away from a fully nationalised system without controlling the process.
I only have facts and figures to go on like cancer survival rates, patient satisfaction surveys, and specific stories in the BBC about what to think of the NHS. I am not sure how this constitutes a biased view unless of course statistics have been skewed, and patient surveys about their dissatisfaction with the NHS are biased, or the stories in the BBC are incorrect (which I suppose can be true).
I find a lot of people in the UK defend the NHS because it has always treated them when they needed it. I haven’t had any problem here in the US with health care but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a problem with it. One persons experience shouldn’t constitute either an indictment or acceptance of the status quo.
I think NSA seemed to be satisfied with a survival rate of 62% for prostate cancer. What if I told you that the survival rate in the US was over 90%? Are you still satisfied with the care the NHS provides?
X
When it comes to prostrate cancer, I would want to know much more about the study. As you probably know, that is in the future for most men in the US, but will kill very few. In fact, for many people, it isn't even treated, as it is not going to be the cause of death.
This makes the stats on that particular cancer very prone to 'adjustment'. Therefore, I'd want to make extra sure that both sides are talking about detected cancers, are using the same detection procedures, etc., to ensure that the statistics are comparable. I think your breast cancer stats are a more readily comparable set, as that is rarely, if ever, left untreated, and detection is aggressive.
As for your comment about UK defending the NHS. That's pretty insightful. We, as a species, tend to resist change and cling to what has worked. The vast majority of US citizens cling to our strange system because it has worked for the majority of us, and the UK shouldn't be any different. My concern isn't about what is happening now, because we could solve the current situation in any number of relatively trivial ways. Instead, my concern is that, if you examine the trend in health care over the last century (and further back, but there was little change between 1000 and 1900), and project forward based on that trend, then health care really WILL eat our economy.
The only studies I was looking at was survivability rates for 5 years after initial diagnosis/treatment (which is typical for cancer studies). The only way you were counted as being a casualty of cancer is if it was listed as the cause of death, if you were still living obviously you were counted in the living column. The US by far has the best survivability rates when it comes to cancer. This can be linked to many factors including early detection, greater availability of the latest drugs and surgical techniques, and the quality of the health care professionals.
I can understand why people support their health system, however a majority of health care dollars (or pounds in the UK) are spent in the later years of life, which I do not think any of the people posting here are (at least I hope they are not :)). Which means for most people they have gotten treated for colds or a broken limb or some other minor incidents in their life and the NHS has performed those tasks well. However they haven’t had to personally deal with cancer or other major health crisis yet, and from what I have read about the NHS in the UK it’s not the first place I would want to be if I had to deal with a major illness.
X