France and America

[Dukekasper]

New Rule: Conservatives have to stop rolling their eyes every time they hear the word France. Like just calling something French is the ultimate argument winner. "Aw, you want a healthcare system that covers everybody and costs half as much? You mean like they have in France? What's there to say about a country that was too stupid to get on board with our wonderfully conceived and brilliantly executed war in Iraq?"

 

Earlier this year, the Boston Globe got hold of an internal campaign document from GOP contender Mitt Romney, and a recurring strategy was to tie Democrats to the hated French. It said, in the Machiavellian code of the election huckster, "Hillary equals France," and it envisioned bumper stickers that read, "First, not France."

 

Except for one thing: We're not first. America isn't ranked anywhere near first in anything except military might and snotty billionaires. The country that is ranked No. 1 in healthcare, for example, is France. The World Health Organization ranks America at 37 in the world -- not two, or five -- 37, in between Costa Rica and Slovenia, which are both years away from discovering dentistry.

 

Yet an American politician could not survive if he or she uttered the simple, true statement, "France has a better healthcare system than us, and we should steal it." Because here, simply dismissing an idea as French passes for an argument. John Kerry? Can't vote for him -- he looks French. Yeah, as opposed to the other guy, who just looked stupid.

 

I know, if God had wanted us to learn from the Enlightenment, he wouldn't have given us Sean Hannity.

 

And I'm not saying France is better than America. Because I assume you've already figured that out by now. I don't want to be French, I just want to take what's best from the French. Stealing, for your own self-interest -- Republicans should love this idea. Taking what's best from the French: You know who else did that? The Founding Fathers. Hate to sink your toy boat, Fox News, but the Founding Fathers, the ones you say you revere, were children of the French Enlightenment, and fans of it, and they turned it into a musical called the Constitution of the United States. And they did a helluva job, so good it has been said that it was written by geniuses so it could be run by idiots. But the current administration is putting that to the test. The Founding Fathers were erudite, well-read, European-thinking aristocrats -- they would have had nothing in common with, and no use for, an ill-read xenophobic bumpkin like George W. Bush.

 

The American ideas of individuality, religious tolerance and freedom of speech came directly out of the French Enlightenment -- but, shhh, don't tell Alabama. Voltaire wrote "men are born equal" before Jefferson was wise enough to steal it.

 

Countries are like people -- they tend to get smarter as they get older. Noted military genius Donald Rumsfeld famously dismissed France as part of Old Europe, but the French are ... what's the word I'm looking for? Oh yeah, "mature." We think they're rude and snobby, but maybe that's because they're talking to us.

 

For example, France just had an election, and people over there approach an election differently. They vote. Eighty-five percent turned out. The only thing 85 percent of Americans ever voted on was Sanjaya.

 

Maybe the high turnout has something to do with the fact that the French candidates are never asked where they stand on evolution, prayer in school, abortion, stem cell research or gay marriage. And if the candidate knows about a character in a book other than Jesus, it's not a drawback. There is no Pierre Six-pack who can be fooled by childish wedge issues. And the electorate doesn't vote for the guy they want to have a croissant with. Nor do they care about the candidate's private lives: In the current race, Ségolène Royal has four kids but never bothered to get married. And she's a socialist. In America, if a Democrat even thinks you're calling him a liberal he immediately grabs an orange vest and a rifle and heads into the woods to kill something.

 

The conservative candidate is married, but he and his wife live apart and lead separate lives. They aren't asked about it in the media, and the people are OK with it, for the same reason the people are OK with nude beaches: because they're not a nation of 6-year-olds who scream and giggle if they see pee-pee parts. They have weird ideas about privacy. They think it should be private. In France, everyone has a mistress. Even mistresses have mistresses. To not have a lady on the side says to the voters, "I'm no good at multitasking."

 

France has its faults -- the country has high unemployment, a nasty immigrant problem and all that ridiculous accordion music. But its healthcare is the best, it's not dependent on Mideast oil, it has the lowest poverty rate and the lowest income-inequality rate among industrialized nations, and it's the greenest, with the lowest carbon dumping and the lowest electricity bill.

 

France has 20,000 miles of railroads that work. We have the trolley at the mall that takes you from Pottery Barn to the Gap. It has bullet trains. We have bullets. France has public intellectuals. We have Dr. Phil. And France invented sex during the day, the ménage à trois, lingerie and the tongue.

 

And the French are not fat. Can't we just admit we could learn something from them?

[Entropy]

While I think that free healthcare is a nice thing, you should keep in mind that the taxes in France are much higher than in the US.

I was watching part of a debate between the French two primary candidates for presidency, and the guy that leads in polls said he thinks that half of your money should go to the state..

 

In the US, only about 33% of your money goes to taxes (less if you are poor, more if you are rich).

 

What we should do is lower the expense on 'defense', and pump more money in healthcare. If the money from the war on 'terror' were invested in healthcare, I am sure much more lives would have been saved.

 

And for the record, I am a libertarian. Next election I might vote for the Democrats if they have a viable candidate (not that fucking bitch), or else I will vote for the Libertarian candidate.

[Schmurk]

I think it's a little bit too wonderful view of France...

 

Yes, we have a good healthcare system but too good IMO because a lot of people are abusing of it. The actual deficit of the "Social Security" (this is how it's called) reaches several billions of Euros...

Moreover, because of this system, we use way too much medicine and there's a lot of lost. You go see your doctor for a simple cold and you come at home with at least 4 or 5 different useless drugs... And of course, all of this is paid by the community

 

We also have a very bad working system, take a look at the number of unemployed people who don't want to work because they earn more money when they have no job than when they have a small job. And again, all of this is paid by the community and of course by the people who work. I'm not saying this is bad for people who have not a job but some tuning should be done...

At the same time, the level of our pays is considerably low if you compare to the US which is also linked to the previous problem. For example, with my qualification, I could earn double of what I'm actually earning in France.

 

About the last election, the number of people who voted was very high mainly because of what happened at the last election in 2002. The last time a lot of people didn't voted at the first round (35-40% if I'm right) because there was no good candidates so the extremist right side went to the second round and it was the disaster. We were obliged to vote for the other candidate that almost nobody wanted.

 

Well, France has good points but "all is not pink"

And I'm almost sure that some other Europeans countries have better results than France...

 

But for sure, I wouldn't like to live in America!

 

PS: I'm not good at all in politics so it's just my point of view...

[nicky]

While I think that free healthcare is a nice thing, you should keep in mind that the taxes in France are much higher than in the US.

I was watching part of a debate between the French two primary candidates for presidency, and the guy that leads in polls said he thinks that half of your money should go to the state..

 

In the US, only about 33% of your money goes to taxes (less if you are poor, more if you are rich).

 

What we should do is lower the expense on 'defense', and pump more money in healthcare. If the money from the war on 'terror' were invested in healthcare, I am sure much more lives would have been saved.

 

And for the record, I am a libertarian. Next election I might vote for the Democrats if they have a viable candidate (not that fucking bitch), or else I will vote for the Libertarian candidate.

 

33% is way too much IMO, and what sucks most about universal health care is that 5% of the patients use up 50% of the money. In New England a group of Insurance companies and Biotech companies came together to see how we could fix healthcare in our states. The numbers that were presented by Insurance companies were just staggering. I'm supporting Mitt Romney for prez, but i HATE his heath care plan in Taxachusetts (where i live). It's Mandatory participation (which is actually a TAX, even though it's privatized) and there is no drug coverage and a 1000$ deductable, so until YOU spend 1k on your health, they dont pay for a thing! also, it costs a fortune. It doesn't effect me (I have the same health plan that fat ted kennedy gets) from my employer but its not right to burden people with this when it's actually cheaper for them to just pay their own bills and NOT pay into this health care plan. It pretty much takes from those who work hard but don't work for a big corporation, and gives it to people who don't work, illegal aliens, and those 5% I mentioned earlier.

 

I would much rather have it seperated this way:

 

a tiered system where those who take care of themselves and have a history of health pay the least, the longer you stay healthy and are part of the plan, the more your costs in the plan go down.

 

anyone who eats at mcDonalds and whose doctor says is at risk because of smoking, obesity or drug abuse in a seperate teir who pay the most, those who continue to live like this have thier premiums and deductables increased.

 

those who are terminally ill, combat veterans, require rare orphan drugs to live, are in near-fetal accidents that require life support and other non-intentional severe problems are payed for by the public if they have no current coverage on the previous 2 teirs (conservative culture of life should have NO issue with this)

 

There should be 3 private providers to choose from who have various programs to choose from.

 

Noone may be on the boards or own direct stock in more then 1 (but mutual funds may).

 

Every 2 years, 1 slot opens for bidding to replace one of the 3 private providers by other private companies. (6 year terms in essence).

 

Anyone may switch providers if they choose, but no provider may force someone out of the plan, the provider agreed to provide care to EVERYONE based on a formula when they bid on the slot, and they must abide by it.

 

The pricing for each person is the same across all plans. No special treatment for larger companies. the Formulas are to be filed publicly at the time of bidding and changes may only be made with congressional approval and signed by the president (to prevent collapse of a provider, or multiple providers).

 

The 3 providers may negotiate what they will pay for services with hospitals, but must do so collectively (no more 50$ tongue dispensers)

 

Doctors decide what tests should be run and will be payed for based on good medical practices, not providers, but the patient has an interest in keeping prices down and should make sure they want the cost to go against thier future premiums.

 

Patients may dispute the costs payed by thier provider (if you see the doctors charged your health plan 500$ to sit in the waiting room for an hour, then saw you for 3 minutes and performed no actual work) because the patient has an interest in keeping thier costs down, so thier own premiums don't go up. This is not the case now, and it's quite disgusting what hospitals charge my insurance for things that they did not do, or overcharged for things they did do.

 

This is the Crosis health care plan. feel free to implement it in your own state (or country)!

 

*EDIT*

Almost forgot, NO Electives are covered. No sex changes, no growth hormones (which are covered in the US for people who want to be 4-5 inches taller, at a cost of 250k per inch!), no plastic surgery that is not to recover from a tragic injury, like face reconstruction or prostetics.

Edited May 16, 2007 by nicky

[Entropy]

Ok, out of curiousity, why are you not supporting Ron Paul?

If he actually makes it to the presidencial race, past the preliminaries, I would vote for him (and I never thought I would vote for a Republican candidate).

 

As for your health plan, I think it is too complicated.

I believe that everyone should pay a certain sum per month (no bigger than 500 usd, or (1/12)% of their income, whichever is LOWER), and have a high deductible, say 1K USD. This way we wouldn't pay for people who go to the doctor for a cold.

 

Also, the laws should be much more strict with the hospitals. For example, a law where any 'mistake' they make in the billing should be deducted by a factor of 1000%.

So for example, if they charge you 50 bucks for a tissue, then 500 bucks should be deducted from the bill.

[Tanyia]

Lol, I was just about to post this video and I found this thread

 

Anyway, the text up at the top is taken from this video. Warning: bad language/sexual content.

 

http://www.davidlebovitz.com/archives/2007...o_bad_ab_1.html

[scafativ]

If the money from the war on 'terror' were invested in healthcare...

 

I agree that we need to spend more on healthcare, but it would also be nice if the money for the war on terror was spent on protecting us from terror, too. It would be a nice change.

 

Scaf

[anthropologist]

New Rules rock

[nicky]

Ok, out of curiousity, why are you not supporting Ron Paul?

If he actually makes it to the presidencial race, past the preliminaries, I would vote for him (and I never thought I would vote for a Republican candidate).

 

As for your health plan, I think it is too complicated.

I believe that everyone should pay a certain sum per month (no bigger than 500 usd, or (1/12)% of their income, whichever is LOWER), and have a high deductible, say 1K USD. This way we wouldn't pay for people who go to the doctor for a cold.

 

Also, the laws should be much more strict with the hospitals. For example, a law where any 'mistake' they make in the billing should be deducted by a factor of 1000%.

So for example, if they charge you 50 bucks for a tissue, then 500 bucks should be deducted from the bill.

 

I thought Ron Paul was OK in the first debate, I prefer strict constructionists but since the world has evolved and global politics can now hit you harder then local politics can (ask anyone who USED to work in textiles), it's important to have someone who is willing to grasp the world by the reins instead of letting them go.

 

a flat fee & deductable plan provides no incentive to get healthy and stay healthy much like the current system, and is the driver behind the consistant rise in health care costs. People who work hard and stay healthy get absolutely no reward for doing so under teh current system or a flat rate system. And the high deductable and high premiums make it more afforable to not be a part of it at all.

 

I agree with penalty for hospitals, and would increase the scope to private practices small single doctor clinics.

[Entropy]

I thought Ron Paul was OK in the first debate, I prefer strict constructionists but since the world has evolved and global politics can now hit you harder then local politics can (ask anyone who USED to work in textiles), it's important to have someone who is willing to grasp the world by the reins instead of letting them go.

 

Does that mean that we should 'spread freedom and democracy around the world', and make the whole world love us even more than they already do?

[nicky]

I thought Ron Paul was OK in the first debate, I prefer strict constructionists but since the world has evolved and global politics can now hit you harder then local politics can (ask anyone who USED to work in textiles), it's important to have someone who is willing to grasp the world by the reins instead of letting them go.

 

Does that mean that we should 'spread freedom and democracy around the world', and make the whole world love us even more than they already do?

 

I think it's less about promoting the "Freedom and Democracy" that has propped up the Saudi Kings and Saddam Hussein, and more about spreading an ideology where you can't hang someone because they warship GOD the wrong way. I recognize the faults in our foreign relations, but we don't base our foreign policy on what our competitors compain about (China, Russia, France). I've watched as our policies have evolved from what's good for america to what's good for business (which has propped up the largest communist nation in the history of the world, a vision our forefathers would balk at). I think that policy migration has shown America to be more about money, and if you look at America thru the goggles of MTV, it appears as though that's what America has become. If our foreign policy was determined by us who don't have a business interest in it, but instead we solved conflicts based on what's reasonable (and in some cases, like sudan or afghanistan, military action WOULD be reasonable) then we would be displaying a fairer side of America. Right now people who CLAIM to be doing good for the world are actually causing us the most harm, like the Bill Gates Foundation who rather then giving the money away, is actaully INVESTING the money in overseas corporations that run Oil wells in Africa. In this peticular case, that oil well burns off the natural gas that comes from the well rather then bottling it because it's cheaper! These wells now create fires hundreds of feet high, and the villagers nearby call it the city of lights. This incredible burning wastes an amazing amount of natural resources, pollutes heavily, contributes to CO2 and has now caused all of the villagers to get respitory diseases and cancers for many many miles around it. If America knew what was good for us, we would FORCE them to cap those wells immediately, but since it's business as usuall it doesn't even make the news, and it's funded by a giant duche who claims to be helping people. You would think the African American community in america would be screaming about this, but Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Racism Crusade is funded by Bill Gates too.

 

*Edit* Oh yeah, almost for got this one: it's looking like people who value life are going to boycott the chineese olympics, becase that government is a large investor of the oil companies that provide the sudaneese government the money to arm the malitias that are killing unarmed villagers based on race and religion. So while our government continues to subsidize all of these socialist public spending programs with chineese money, and businesses continue to bend to the will of that communist government, there are people who won't stand for it, and will speak out against them.

Edited May 21, 2007 by nicky

[Entropy]

Ok, so then should the US send troups in Sudan/Congo/Rwanda?

Should US send troups to Iran?

How about North Korea?

[nicky]

Ok, so then should the US send troups in Sudan/Congo/Rwanda?

Should US send troups to Iran?

How about North Korea?

 

North Korea - Bomb them, the power centers are well seperated form the oppressed civilians.

 

the others, arm the opposition and send the CIA to coordinate and provide satalite and aerial data, in Iran it would be easy to remove the islamists, they are a minority.

 

It's pretty clear which sides want to dominate by war and which sides had been able to live in peace. If Islamists in Sudan did not start a jihad to force everyone there to submit to islam, the people of other religions would have gone about thier business raising thier cattle.