Here is a subject that preoccupies me at the moment. Europe continues, slowly and reluctantly, to deregulate its economies. In this it is following the US example. The American economy has some problems at the moment, but the EU's governments are ever mindful of, and oppressed by, the long-term success of the American model. What is interesting is that the United States has been moving the other way. If the Democrats control both the White House and Congress next year, which seems very likely, America's hitherto-gentle drift in Europe's general direction will accelerate. One day, might the lines actually cross?
This piece for The Atlantic takes a first stab at the question. I offer it as an introduction to the topic. I intend to return to it.
That the United States stands apart is something Americans and Europeans have agreed on for a long time. It goes back to Tocqueville, like most things. Many of the differences of character and culture he noted in the first half of the 19th century are still there, no doubt, but some more recent contrasts are looking questionable. Since 1945, American exceptionalism has been asserted with particular confidence—but gradually diminishing validity—in economic affairs. America is to Europe as private enterprise is to the public good, as selfish individualism is to social partnership, as "compensation" is to work-life balance. Modern America has limited government, weak unions, high-powered incentives, capitalism red in tooth and claw. Post-war Europe has tax-and-spend, transport strikes, six-week vacations, and the welfare state. Or so, on both sides of the Atlantic, we fondly imagine.
Living in the U.S. for several years after decades as a restless Brit, I continue to be struck by two things. First, this idea of rival economic paradigms appeals to both audiences: Neither would have it any other way. This may be why the notion persists so tenaciously, despite not being true. That is the second thing. Caricatures are well and good, but this one is just too much. In economic matters, America is far more like Europe, and Europe more like America, than either cares to admit. Moreover, the differences continue to shrink, and the pace of convergence seems about to accelerate. We will see whether the idea of America as the land of uncushioned capitalism—the timid and work-shy need not apply—will outlast a faster approach to the European norm.The Democrats' promise of comprehensive health reform—something the country finally seems to want—is what prompts this line of thought. Over the past ten years, it seems, many Americans have come to think it wrong that a country as rich as theirs fails to guarantee access to health care. For much longer, almost all Europeans have thought it both incomprehensible and shameful. This is America's biggest social-policy exception (unless you count capital punishment as social policy). And it is marked for abolition.
Universal health care, if it happens, will be an enormous change in its own right, of course, but also one with further implications. It is going to push taxes up—in the end, possibly way up. The plans lately under discussion have not been properly costed, but figures of $50 billion to $75 billion a year in extra spending—the sorts of numbers bruited for the Democrats' proposals—are optimistic. Beyond the initial outlay, whatever that proves to be, is the likelihood that people will gradually migrate (at their own initiative, or more likely at their employers') from private insurance schemes to the new (and presumably subsidized) public alternatives. Everything depends on how the system is managed, but it is easy to foresee, in the fullness of time, a far bigger increase in the cost to taxpayers than the current plans envisage. And if American health care coverage and financing get more European, American taxes will have to as well.
The rest of the article is here.
After reading this article and I've had this opinion for some time. The problems with health care in the United States and the war in Iraq are very similar.
They're both pretty much a big mess. The actual problem lays in facing the facts of “Where do we go from here”.
On the health care front it’s going to take a large number of very small steps to try and transition to universal health care from a massively privatized health care system.
The answer isn’t the Clinton plan based on mandated health insurance. This would have to be done as a payroll deduction that would be one more burden on people who are already struggling to pay the bills they have. Because of the so called service economy, many people who have jobs but just don't make enough to pay the bills they have. Let alone having to pay for mandated health insurance on their 32 hrs a week at Wal-Mart
I don’t think the Obama plan is all that much better it’s far from perfect as it does have insurance mandates for Children thing is that’s part of taking small steps and the long view.
For what it’s worth if you look at what Chris Dodd has proposed. It’s one of the best and most workable health care reform packages
Almost all of Europe has universal health care it was part of the Marshall plan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan President Truman wanted and lobbied for these medical benefits for the American people. The AMA and other organizations effectively blocked the legislation from passing. Now sixty years later people have decided it might not be such a bad idea after all?
Now the war in Iraq:
The Ladies and Gentlemen of congress were played for fools by GWB’s administration. Three weeks before an election in which all the members of the House and a third of the members of the Senate would be on the ballot. Fear tactics were used to secure the authorization for military force against Iraq.
The cusp of the problem lays in the very nature of Iraq. It’s a synthetic country created out of whole cloth after WW-I. The people of that country have little to no sense of Patriotism, Nationalism or Democracy. These are things that most Americans take for granted as being standard cultural baggage.
However the Iraqi people do not have that kind of background. The only type of leadership they have ever experienced is Tribalism, Theocracy and Military dictatorships. In short it comes down to I’m the leader ordained by Allah so you shall do what I say, or this my Army I’ll shoot you if you don’t do what I say.
Iraq is never going to have a "Functional Democracy" The reason for this is very simple actually. The Iraqi people neither want understand or desire to have one. They're going to have a civil war. Then whichever faction comes out on top will suppress the other two end of story...
While I respect the hard work the men and women on the ground are doing. It will all be for nothing when everything is said and done. However we can not just up and start pulling people out regardless of what the spin doctors in Washington are saying we already have bases that are every bit as permanent in Iraq as many of the facilities in Germany and Korea... We're in it for the long haul and American Service men and women will die in someone else's civil war in the cross fire.
See what America's unions have done to the auto industry.
And what have they done?
Cause from where I stand neither GM, Ford nor Chrysler can design a fuel efficient car that is not full of defects and that is not the UAW's fault.
It's that of the fault he Management so stop blaming Unions for Management Screw-ups.
"...wrong that a country as rich as theirs fails to guarantee access to health care. "
This is nonsense. Setting aside the entire medicaid program, anyone and everyone has access to medical care. You make a doctor's appointment, see the doctor, get his advice. There you go. Choosing not to purchase those (admittedly pretty expensive) services does not mean that you do not have access to them, anymore that my choosing not to buy a Toyota Prius means I don't have access to it.
Scott Wood,
That's some great thinking. I am happy to know that I have access to a Ferrari. Do I have access to a private jet too? Because I take it that, by your definition, people have access to pretty much everything, whether or not they can pay for it.
On a different point, I share Mr. Crook's impression about the convergence of Europe and the US. I spend a lot of time in France, and any resident of that country will tell you that that citizens are paying more and more for visits to the doctor, working longer hours, and feeling more and more antipathy to unions etc. Personally, I find this regrettable, since I lean left and detest Sarkozy, but it's a fact. Meanwhile, consider that there's a clear will in the US to improve health care and work-family balance, and the hypothesis that the two worlds may converge seems at least plausible.
Yes, taxes will go up, but let's not forget, we're already paying more per capita than anybody else for health care, and that's with 20% of the people out of the system entirely. And we aren't even all that healthy. As far as the auto industry goes, health care is their biggest problem, aside from not making cars that anybody wants anymore.
The money is already being spent, we just need to reconfigure the system to make it more equitable and efficient. It does society no good to deny health care to people who then become chronically ill and poor, end up on Mediacaid forever with a variety of problems, and can no longer contribute to the economy in a productive way. The same goes for poor schools. You can pay for a decent classroom for kids today, or a $30K/year prison cell tomorrow.
Expect the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies to come out swinging, and unless the Senate can muster 60 votes, I guarantee you the Republicans will filibuster anything. They are strictly in the game to protect wealthy interests and transfer tax money to corporations, period. Always have been. The social crap is window dressing to get poor suckers to vote for them.
alex:
"Access" is one of those weasel words that people try to use to imply something greater than mean. If you mean "can't afford" then say "can't afford," and allow for the possibility that a fair number of people who don't have health insurance are, by any reasonable definition of the term, simply choosing to buy other things with their money/time. The term "access" implies some sort of structural problem that needs "fixing," which may be true but needs more discussion.
Aside from semantic squabbles, not having health insurance does not mean that you don't have access to health care. Even not being able to afford health insurance does not mean that you don't have access to health care. In the US, for better or worse, all sorts of people who can't/don't pay are regularly subsidized by folks who can/do.
Maybe the health care system can be structured more efficiently. But the problem is not anything that can reasonably be described as lack of "access."