Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Inspired Scribe
IBIS
Posts: 1,735
Registered: ‎11-22-2006
0 Kudos

Re: sara palin

ReaderJane, where did you get the idea that she is wealthy?

IBIS
IBIS

"I am a part of everything that I have read."
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians. Health care.

[ Edited ]

The point of our discussion was concern about older politicians running for high office.  National statistics that lump everyone together are simply not relevant to that discussion.  As I accurately pointed out.

 


Choisya wrote:

Looking at overall raw numbers is much too simplistic, Jon.Our populations are quite different.  In order to get an accurate comparison between two countries, rather than just looking at the total population you need to look at longevity statistics for different groups, and then factor he longevity and size of those groups into the final figure.  We tend to have larger numbers of those groups which have shorter longevity times, pushing down our national average relative to other countries.  

 

Not simplistic at all.  Yours is a statistically inaccurate way of looking at longevity. All groups are taken into consideration by the WHO when measuring national averages and necessary adjustments are made by statisticians when looking at different countries.  (The figures Jon gave were from the WHO statistics which also show infant mortality per 1000 live births in 2008 as 6.30 in the US and only 4.93 in the UK.)

 

If you have 'larger numbers with shorter longevity times' you must ask why - are you talking about immigrants, for instance, because the UK has a larger proportion of immigrants from the developing world than does the US.  One reason, beside health care, longevity is affected in the US is that the size of families are generally larger and this has always been a factor in life expectancy. This may be because of ethnicity and/or religion.  Whatever the reason, it is a fact that life expectancy is lower in the US than in the UK and most commentators accept that universal health provision has had a positive affect on this in the UK. Why else do we try so hard to increase health provision in developing countries?  Why else do many countries try to reduce birth rates?  The fact that every child in the UK has free milk and access to regular health care from birth and throughout its school life and that elderly people get free flu and pneumonia jabs, free hip, knee and heart replacements etc MUST have an effect on longevity. Free birth control measures are also available on the NHS which, in turn, has an effect on the size of our families and therefore on infant mortality statistics.

 

Incidentally, the European Union is now showing 6.38 for infant mortality because there has been a significant increase of deaths in childbirth since the Eastern bloc joined the EU. Again, this is because family sizes are larger and their health provision is not yet 'up to scratch'.  As with Spain, Portugal and Southern Ireland, the EU will make grants available for improving health provision and in due course I would expect to see that figure to be nearer the UK one, although ethnicity and opposition to birth control may keep it higher.        

 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

Looking at overall raw numbers is much too simplistic, Jon.  Our populations are quite different.  In order to get an accurate comparison between two countries, rather than just looking at the total population you need to look at longevity statistics for different groups, and then factor he longevity and size of those groups into the final figure.  We tend to have larger numbers of those groups which have shorter longevity times, pushing down our national average relative to other countries.  

 

Actually, since the issue raised here was about about older politicans seeking high office, you need to look at that group.  You have to knock out infant mortality, adolescent mortality, etc.  Those people don't get to run for office in their 60s or 70s. 

 

So you need to look at people who have already reached, say, 60, are presently in good health (people in bad health don't run for high office), with a significant degree of wealth (people with no wealth don't run credible campaigns for high political offices).  When we talk about the issue of age in those seeking high political office, then, what is really at issue is the longevity expected by this group of people, not by the general population.  

 

As the BBC has noted, the waiting  time for operations in Britain can be very long, whereas in the US these operations are much more quickly available, leading to a better health condition for the older residents who are generally more in need of operations and less able to tolerate long waiting periods.   For example, at the time of that report, the waiting time for a cataract operation was eight months.  When my need for a cataract operation was identified, I was in the hospital within two weeks, and it could have been sooner except that I had to wait for a day when my wife was free to drive me (it's an all day trip from here to Seattle and back).   The waiting time for a hip operation in England at the time was 11 months; when my father in law and his doctor decided that it was time to get his hip replaced it was scheduled for the same week.    These waiting times matter when you're talking about senior ongevity and the ability to keep active working in a stressful job. 

 


Jon_B wrote:

Everyman wrote:

That may be the case in England.   Given your health system, I can imagine that your older politicians may indeed have the kind of problems you are concerned about


 

That's a rather odd conclusion to draw given that the UK's average life expectancy is higher than that of the US.  

 

CIA Link

 

UN link


 

 


 

Message Edited by Choisya on 10-03-2008 08:53 AM

 

 

Message Edited by Jon_B on 10-03-2008 08:00 AM
_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Frequent Contributor
Jon_B
Posts: 1,893
Registered: ‎07-15-2008
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians. Health care.

Hey folks just dropping a brief not that I'm editing some posts in this thread to reduce the length of those links I posted on page 5  (and which others subsequently quoted) because I'm testing to see if the long url's were causing the technical problems some users were having on this board.  The links should still go to the same place. 
________________________________________

Need some help setting up your My B&N profile? Click here!

Looking for a particular book, but can't remember the title or author? Ask about it here!
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians.

Waiting times in the US are dependent upon the ablity to pay or to pay for adequate insurance in the first place.

 

I am glad to see that you are such an expert in American health care, as in everything else.  I at least cited your own BBC in support of my point.  

 

I'm glad that your family has had a good outcome from your health service.  I'm not surprised that a high level government worker who worked, inter alia, in Downing Street would be able to understand and work within the system to make sure that her family received the best care from the government health system.  Our high level government officials and their families also receive extraordinarily high levels of care at government expense.

 

My uncle was a doctor in England working in the NHS, and he had a quite different view of health system than you do.   But anecdotal approaches, while interesting in their own right, whether from patient or doctor viewpoints, are not statistics, which is why I cited the BBC study as an objective outlook on the system. 

 


Choisya wrote:

As the BBC has noted, the waiting  time for operations in Britain can be very long, whereas in the US these operations are much more quickly available, leading to a better health condition for the older residents who are generally more in need of operations and less able to tolerate long waiting periods.

 

Waiting times in the US are dependent upon the ablity to pay or to pay for adequate insurance in the first place. In the UK waiting times may be longer in the major conarbations but in general there are few delays and treatment is given within a reasonable period of time.  I have had four children on the NHS, several major operations, prolonged teatment for depression both in and out of hospital and currently have ongoing treatment for diabetes. At no time in my life have I experienced a major delay and neither have my children or grandchildren.  Heart attacks can be dealt with within half an hour by para medics, prior to hospitalisation.  We are advised to wait for hip replacements until pain relieving drugs no longer work because they are 'once in a lifetime' operations.  If your need for an operation significantly impairs your daily life or ability to earn you will be fast tracked. 

 

Despite the press scare stories, our health system works well and is available to everyone 'from cradle to grave' irrespective of their income or mental/physical state.  We are also able to access health care in Europe and so, for instance, when I forgot my diabetes medication last year, I was able to visit a Belgian hospital for replacement insulin etc. and when I was attacked and injured in Rome I was hospitalised for two days without charge. 

 

Hierarchy: Everyone should be registered with a local doctor (GP) and it is that doctor who is your initial point of contact for a diagnosis and who refers you on to a specialist at the local hospital if necessary.  Doctors have daily surgeries (except Sunday) and you can generally get an appointment within a few days, instantly if it is urgent.  GPs also come out to visit if you are too ill to attend a surgery. Specialists report back to your doctor as to the medication recommended or, if an operation or other hospital type treatment is needed either the specialist treats you at a local hospital or you are referred on to a specialist one.  You can change your GP or ask to see another specialist at any time.  You can also ask to be treated in a different area, say where your relatives are, or even in the EEC if waiting times are better there.  Anyone who wants to pay still has access to private treatment of course but the majority are content with NHS provision, even high earners.     

 

WJ: I do not understand the lengthy delay your friend experienced because cancer treatment is fast tracked here and there should be only a month's delay between diagnosis and treatment.  I have friends who had cancer who had instantaneous treatment.  Perhaps it was a form of cancer which is not detectable until an advanced stage or perhaps she did not access the system properly.  Free breast and cervix scans are available and we are encouraged to use them. If she was not a permament resident or married to a UK citizen she would have to pay for treatment and that may have delayed her accessing a specialist, although consultations and treatment are given in advance of payment and you do not have to prove you have funds.  If we are in work we pay a small percentage towards our medicines.  We pay a National Insurance premium/tax through our wage packet if we are in work and our health burden is therefore shared nationally. (This is the case throughout the EEC although Germany, for instance, has a mixed private/public system.)  There seems to have been a breakdown in communications with your friend and I am very sorry that she was unable to access earlier treatment here:smileysad:.       

 

Of course there are abuses of the system and delays, poor treatment etc. but this is the case in any system.  Overall the NHS works very well indeed and has greatly improved the health of our nation and no-one here, whatever their circumstances, need suffer for want of health care during their lifetime.  Infant mortality in the UK is better than in the US and the elderly live longer and this is due to better universal health provision.

 

 


thewanderingjew wrote:
regarding illness and elderly politicians, fyi, being concerned about the health of mc cain, i recently asked my dermatologist about mc cain's melanoma. she said if it was the same one recurring, no problem. if it occurred in different parts of the body he would have been gone by now. i don't know if anyone knows more about it. this is just the info she gave me.

i recently lost a dear friend to cancer. she used the health system in britain. i don't know why, but it took about 7 years for her to finally work through the system and reach the specialist she needed who could correctly diagnose her condition. then it took several months to arrange the appt., i believe it was more than 6 and this was with some pull because she had medical doctors in her family.

when she finally saw the specialist she was asked, "who told you that you didn't have a problem?" so much time had been wasted. they treated her but the treatment was too late and unsuccessful.
for years, she questioned the doctors about her problem and was put off and told to live with it; they basically said that nothing could be done to improve her condition and nothing was seriously wrong. perhaps someone can explain to me, the hierarchy that exists in order to get medical care in england regarding referrals and specialists. i understand there are private doctors also, for the wealthy, but how available are they, as well. is there also a long wait? do more people need hip replacements, etc., so that the wait time is longer or are there fewer orthopedic surgeons and/or hospital beds? my friend's ordeal was kafkaesque. is this out of the ordinary?

i find that all of these entitlement programs, good and bad alike, generally encourage abuse. people overuse them because they are free. is this a problem in england?
twj


Everyman wrote:

As the BBC has noted, the waiting  time for operations in Britain can be very long, whereas in the US these operations are much more quickly available, leading to a better health condition for the older residents who are generally more in need of operations and less able to tolerate long waiting periods.   For example, at the time of that report, the waiting time for a cataract operation was eight months.  When my need for a cataract operation was identified, I was in the hospital within two weeks, and it could have been sooner except that I had to wait for a day when my wife was free to drive me (it's an all day trip from here to Seattle and back).   The waiting time for a hip operation in England at the time was 11 months; when my father in law and his doctor decided that it was time to get his hip replaced it was scheduled for the same week.    These waiting times matter when you're talking about senior longevity and the ability to keep active working in a stressful job. 

 


 

 

 


 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians. Health care.

I take exception to your inference that my work entitled me to extra privileges regarding health care or anything else!  This is certainly not the case and I went to my ordinary GP and local hospital like everyone else.  No government employee or party employee here has access to such privileges unless they subscribe to private care plans and I did not. MPs here go to ordinary NHS hospitals and their privileges do not give them access to any different form of health care than that which the public receive.  There would be an outcry if they did. And there are also outcries if high ranking politicians go to private hospitals because it is considered disloyal. Both Mrs Thatcher and Mr Blair went to ordinary NHS hospitals when they were ill.  In the case of Prime Ministers and Ministers, whose diaries include very important engagements, they would get instant treatment but that treatment would be very much like that of Jo Public.  The only high ranking people to use private treatment over here are the Royal family and they pay for it.

 

I have yet to meet an American who approves of any kind of socialist provision in Europe, be it the health service or anything else, so no doubt your uncle was no exception.  There is a deep prejudice against any kind of socialism in the US - which is so often seen as 'communism'  and seems to makes it impossible to judge our system fairly.  Despite the BBC report the NHS is widely praised throughout the world and at least we can boast that everyone is covered by it irrespective of status or income - even the Queen has the right to NHS provision, even though she does not use it (although minor royals have done so).

 

On the other hand this report from the New York Commonwealth Fund says:  'The U.S. is the only industrialized country that fails to guarantee universal health insurance' and 'coverage is deteriorating, leaving millions without affordable access to preventive and essential health care. Quality of care is highly variable and delivered by a system that is too often poorly coordinated, driving up costs, and putting patients at risk.' Although America spends more of its GNP on health care than any nation in the world Americans do not live as long as Western Europeans or the Japanese. A National Health Survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 47 million people of all ages went without insurance.  More than half remained uninsured specifically because they simply couldn't afford it. Of the 47 million Americans without health insurance, 8.7 million are children. 'The U.S. is one-third worse than the best country on mortality from conditions 'amenable to health care' - that is, infant deaths that could have been prevented with timely and effective care.'

'Research consistently highlights the negative link between low income and worsening health - as salaries drop, individuals tend to be more stressed, and generally lead less-healthy lifestyles. People develop diseases at a higher rate and the impact is felt most by the nation's children. Children under the age of 5 are more likely to live in extreme poverty. Uninsured children are at greater risk of experiencing health problems such as obesity, heart disease and asthma that continue to affect them later in adulthood.'

This is the real difference between the US and the UK - 0 million are without health insurance here because the state insures everyone via the tax system.   Waiting lists for operations may be longer in the UK, especially in some of the large conurbations, but you are never deprived of treatment because you are unable to afford insurance.  Your father in law got a quick hip replacement and you got a quick cataract operation only because you could afford it, not because you were entitled to it by right, as I and my fellow citizens are.  I would rather wait for an operation or at my doctor's surgery in the knowledge that I am sharing these facilities with my fellow citizens.  Whether they are all equally deserving, or may be abusing the system, does not overly concern me.  What would concern me is if my poor neighbour could not get the same healthcare for herself and her children as I have been able to do. That last week she was rushed into our local hospital for a caesarian section and was safely delivered of a healthy baby girl is partly due to my willingness, and the willingness of millions of other Brits,  to pay extra taxation for the national good, not just for ourselves. It is a different, more communal, approach to life, less individualistic than the American one but one which I have grown up with and which I much prefer.  I would even go so far as to say that it seems to me a more 'christian' approach to life - in the UK our tax system makes us all 'good Samaritans'.        

 

       

 

 


Everyman wrote:

Waiting times in the US are dependent upon the ablity to pay or to pay for adequate insurance in the first place.

 

I am glad to see that you are such an expert in American health care, as in everything else.  I at least cited your own BBC in support of my point.  

 

I'm glad that your family has had a good outcome from your health service.  I'm not surprised that a high level government worker who worked, inter alia, in Downing Street would be able to understand and work within the system to make sure that her family received the best care from the government health system.  Our high level government officials and their families also receive extraordinarily high levels of care at government expense.

 

My uncle was a doctor in England working in the NHS, and he had a quite different view of health system than you do.   But anecdotal approaches, while interesting in their own right, whether from patient or doctor viewpoints, are not statistics, which is why I cited the BBC study as an objective outlook on the system. 

 


Choisya wrote:

As the BBC has noted, the waiting  time for operations in Britain can be very long, whereas in the US these operations are much more quickly available, leading to a better health condition for the older residents who are generally more in need of operations and less able to tolerate long waiting periods.

 

Waiting times in the US are dependent upon the ablity to pay or to pay for adequate insurance in the first place. In the UK waiting times may be longer in the major conarbations but in general there are few delays and treatment is given within a reasonable period of time.  I have had four children on the NHS, several major operations, prolonged teatment for depression both in and out of hospital and currently have ongoing treatment for diabetes. At no time in my life have I experienced a major delay and neither have my children or grandchildren.  Heart attacks can be dealt with within half an hour by para medics, prior to hospitalisation.  We are advised to wait for hip replacements until pain relieving drugs no longer work because they are 'once in a lifetime' operations.  If your need for an operation significantly impairs your daily life or ability to earn you will be fast tracked. 

 

Despite the press scare stories, our health system works well and is available to everyone 'from cradle to grave' irrespective of their income or mental/physical state.  We are also able to access health care in Europe and so, for instance, when I forgot my diabetes medication last year, I was able to visit a Belgian hospital for replacement insulin etc. and when I was attacked and injured in Rome I was hospitalised for two days without charge. 

 

Hierarchy: Everyone should be registered with a local doctor (GP) and it is that doctor who is your initial point of contact for a diagnosis and who refers you on to a specialist at the local hospital if necessary.  Doctors have daily surgeries (except Sunday) and you can generally get an appointment within a few days, instantly if it is urgent.  GPs also come out to visit if you are too ill to attend a surgery. Specialists report back to your doctor as to the medication recommended or, if an operation or other hospital type treatment is needed either the specialist treats you at a local hospital or you are referred on to a specialist one.  You can change your GP or ask to see another specialist at any time.  You can also ask to be treated in a different area, say where your relatives are, or even in the EEC if waiting times are better there.  Anyone who wants to pay still has access to private treatment of course but the majority are content with NHS provision, even high earners.     

 

WJ: I do not understand the lengthy delay your friend experienced because cancer treatment is fast tracked here and there should be only a month's delay between diagnosis and treatment.  I have friends who had cancer who had instantaneous treatment.  Perhaps it was a form of cancer which is not detectable until an advanced stage or perhaps she did not access the system properly.  Free breast and cervix scans are available and we are encouraged to use them. If she was not a permament resident or married to a UK citizen she would have to pay for treatment and that may have delayed her accessing a specialist, although consultations and treatment are given in advance of payment and you do not have to prove you have funds.  If we are in work we pay a small percentage towards our medicines.  We pay a National Insurance premium/tax through our wage packet if we are in work and our health burden is therefore shared nationally. (This is the case throughout the EEC although Germany, for instance, has a mixed private/public system.)  There seems to have been a breakdown in communications with your friend and I am very sorry that she was unable to access earlier treatment here:smileysad:.       

 

Of course there are abuses of the system and delays, poor treatment etc. but this is the case in any system.  Overall the NHS works very well indeed and has greatly improved the health of our nation and no-one here, whatever their circumstances, need suffer for want of health care during their lifetime.  Infant mortality in the UK is better than in the US and the elderly live longer and this is due to better universal health provision.

 

 

 

Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians. Health care.

I have yet to meet an American who approves of any kind of socialist provision in Europe, be it the health service or anything else, so no doubt your uncle was no exception.

 

My uncle was English, born and raised in England and worked all his life in England except for his time during the war.  I think he made one or at most two visits to the states, but he never lived or worked here, and was pure English, living and working in London (Hamstead Heath area, if it matters).   He worked for the NHS all his workign life as a doctor.   So your presumption is dead wrong.

 

Nor is it true that you haven't met an American who approves of any kind of socalist provsion in Europe, if you count me as somebody you've met.  I fully approve of British Rail, which provides much better service than our private railroad companies ever did.  And the BBC provides much better programming than our commercial stations do (and I think than yours do); if I lived in England I would have no objection to paying my televion tax for socialist TV services.  If I lived and worked in France I'm sure that I would approve of the socialist requirements for limits on working hours and generous required vacation periods.  Don't know whether you have the same things in England.  

 

I doubt you will find any Americans who demand absolute pure unadulterated capitalism.  All Western economies are mixed these days, and necessarily so.   

 

I hear what you say about your access to health care, but I'm entitled to my opinion that a high government official and well educated and assertive person will get better care in the NHS than most other patients. 

 

[Post not quoted because of BN restrictions on length of posts.]

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Bibliophile
TiggerBear
Posts: 9,489
Registered: ‎02-12-2008
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians.


Everyman wrote:

I don't want another person raised on 1950'tys values running the country.

 

And just what is wrong with 50s values?  They were pretty darn good values.  Sure, we had some issues to deal with, mlstly concerning civil rights, but the streets were safe, there was no gang activity to speak of, children were raised to be respectful to their elders, college was affordable, nobody wore their pants hanging half way down their butt, people read books instead of spending all their hours playing video games, if we wanted to watch movies we went to the theater for a social community event instead of holing up in our houses with DVDs,  we had just come out of as good a war as there could be, America was the envy of the world.  

 

We should be so lucky as to go back to 50s values.


 


Where to start... hmmm
Spousal abuse was legal.
Child abuse was legal, and expected.
Homosexuality was not just illegal, but considered a mental illness as well.
Collage may have been cheaper, but fewer people were able to afford it. Not to mention the adverage education level was less than full high school, for the adverage citizen.
Trust a yankee to not understand exactly how bad racism was in the south. Much less the rest of the country.
Common place use of amphetamines for diet drugs, house wives hopped up on speed.
Presexual revolution. 
Cancer was fatal guaranteed. As were most traumatic injuries.
MacCartheism.
The red scare.
Limits on free speech worse than even today's post 911 levels.
If you weren't White you could not vote.
The head of the FBI being the most fearful controlling paranoid ever.
No air conditioning. No Color TV, hmmpt no TV period for most. No computers. No video games. 
 
Sure the 50'tys were great if you were a white upper class straight male. For the rest of us...
 
 
 

 

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians. Health care.

[ Edited ]

You  may be aware from the BBC archive link that I gave that the majority of doctors in the UK opposed the NHS when it was being set up under the 1948 Attlee government so if your uncle was of this generation he was probably part of that opposition.  Opinions of doctors have since changed because they have done very well under the NHS and its success has been apparent to all. 

 

I am pleased to hear of your 'socialism' but there is no longer a British Rail, I am sorry to say:smileysad:.  Margaret Thatcher denationalised it in the 80s and we now have a number of inter-linked privatised services, although the government still has some control.  Rail was originally nationalised by Winston Churchill as part of the war effort, not for socialist reasons, although the subsequent Attlee and later Conservative and Labour governments chose to continue nationalisation.  French and German railways are still nationalised and they are much more efficient and cheaper than ours.   

 

The BBC is definitely not a 'socialist' organisation and was set up by a Conservative government several years before the first Labour government.  It is a national service financed by subscription but there is no political element and it's Charter forbids any. If it appears 'socialist' or 'left wing' to Americans it is because the British population is generally more 'left wing' than the American population and the BBC necessarily reflects its constituents' views..  

 

My father, a leading British trade unionist, was at the forefront of fighting for shorter working hours, holiday pay, sick pay etc. and British trade unionism was the world leader in these matters, from the 19C onwards.  Again, Margaret Thatcher legislated against many of these hard won rights and we have far less protection than we used to have.  France and Germany, who followed our lead in the 20C, have fared better because trade unionism is still strong there.  I often reflect that my father and his generation fought from the Depression until the 1950s to get these rights for British workers but they only lasted 20 years before many of them were overthrown by conservatism and employer-power:smileysad:.  That we still have a shorter working week, sick pay, holiday pay, maternity & paternity pay is now due to subsequent EEC legislation.  Many employers are again creating contracts with minimum benefits and we have become more 'Americanised' in our working lives since Thatcher's time.  Scandinavia now leads on such provision as you can see from this article on EEC labour rights.  Post-war Scandinavian governments have been far more 'socialistic' than UK or European ones.   

 

If any doctor or hospital I attended had known that I was a Parliamentary party official working at Downing Street when Labour was in power, I might have secured more attention but as it was I kept it quiet - I was determined to stay out of any press limelight and remain a 'back room gel'!:smileyhappy:  I agree that being politicised and knowing the system helps to secure better treatment but that knowledge is not confined to party workers - I have no doubt that you too have such expertise in the American sector.  The thing is, yours is not a nationally funded system so folks can pay to pull rank and get away with it.  If anyone pulls rank using the NHS, it would be on the front pages of the national press immediately.  But that is not to say that if Tony Blair was in an NHS hospital he would not get more deferential treatment from the staff. 

 

 

Whilst I agree that America now has a mixed and less capitalistic economy, I think American attitudes towards the economy and public provision are still laissez faire. The crisis in Washington this week, with the public and their Representatives shouting about 'financial socialism' and 'trickle down communism' etc. has shown this.  In Europe such measures went through quickly and were accepted by both the opposition parties and the public as necessary state intervention.  Indeed three EEC governments, France, Belgium and Luxemberg combined their national resources, more or less overnight, to 'bailout' their economies. 

 

     

 

 


Everyman wrote:

I have yet to meet an American who approves of any kind of socialist provision in Europe, be it the health service or anything else, so no doubt your uncle was no exception.

 

My uncle was English, born and raised in England and worked all his life in England except for his time during the war.  I think he made one or at most two visits to the states, but he never lived or worked here, and was pure English, living and working in London (Hamstead Heath area, if it matters).   He worked for the NHS all his workign life as a doctor.   So your presumption is dead wrong.

 

Nor is it true that you haven't met an American who approves of any kind of socalist provsion in Europe, if you count me as somebody you've met.  I fully approve of British Rail, which provides much better service than our private railroad companies ever did.  And the BBC provides much better programming than our commercial stations do (and I think than yours do); if I lived in England I would have no objection to paying my televion tax for socialist TV services.  If I lived and worked in France I'm sure that I would approve of the socialist requirements for limits on working hours and generous required vacation periods.  Don't know whether you have the same things in England.  

 

I doubt you will find any Americans who demand absolute pure unadulterated capitalism.  All Western economies are mixed these days, and necessarily so.   

 

I hear what you say about your access to health care, but I'm entitled to my opinion that a high government official and well educated and assertive person will get better care in the NHS than most other patients. 

 

 

Message Edited by Choisya on 10-04-2008 05:46 AM
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians.: The 1950s.

[ Edited ]

LOL TiggerBear - tell it like it is:smileyhappy:.  To your list I would add racial segregation and lynchings:smileysad:.  To ours I would add racial discrimination, to both lists lack of adequate birth control and higher infant/adult mortality. Over here there were food shortages, especially sweet (and chocolate!) rationing.  In fact shortages of most things were the norm over here postwar.  The school leaving age was 14 unless you passed a scholarship to grammar school.  (Here black citizens could always vote and have not been segregated since the time of slavery, except by income levels.)

 

There was gang warfare too in most major cities and there always has been. My earliest memory (1936) is of my father coming in bleeding from a knife wound to his forehead, having been caught up in a fascist gang attack upon a trade union demonstration. In the 20s/30s the US had Mafia gangs during prohibition.  I believe West Side Story was based on the New York gangs of the 50s/60s?  In the UK we had teddy-boys, then Mods & Rockers.

 

There were also major slums over here and I think in the US too.  There was a huge political effort to clear them and to build public housing in the 1960s but I do not know whether this was the case in the US?   As you were not bombed, housing may have not been such a problem. Because of increased immigration and the deterioration of that 1960s housing stock, it is again a problem.

 

One important post-50s revolution for both our nations is the ability of ordinary people to afford overseas travel (income permitting).   

 

I think there was probably as much fuss over the introduction of the bikini to our beaches as there is now about 'pants hanging half way down their butt':smileyvery-happy:.

 

We still do not have air conditioning:smileyhappy:.  Nor do we put ice in many of our drinks:smileyhappy:.  Beer is still drunk at room temperature:smileyhappy:.   

 


TiggerBear wrote:

Everyman wrote:

I don't want another person raised on 1950'tys values running the country.

 

And just what is wrong with 50s values?  They were pretty darn good values.  Sure, we had some issues to deal with, mlstly concerning civil rights, but the streets were safe, there was no gang activity to speak of, children were raised to be respectful to their elders, college was affordable, nobody wore their pants hanging half way down their butt, people read books instead of spending all their hours playing video games, if we wanted to watch movies we went to the theater for a social community event instead of holing up in our houses with DVDs,  we had just come out of as good a war as there could be, America was the envy of the world.  

 

We should be so lucky as to go back to 50s values.


 


Where to start... hmmm
Spousal abuse was legal.
Child abuse was legal, and expected.
Homosexuality was not just illegal, but considered a mental illness as well.
Collage may have been cheaper, but fewer people were able to afford it. Not to mention the adverage education level was less than full high school, for the adverage citizen.
Trust a yankee to not understand exactly how bad racism was in the south. Much less the rest of the country.
Common place use of amphetamines for diet drugs, house wives hopped up on speed.
Presexual revolution. 
Cancer was fatal guaranteed. As were most traumatic injuries.
MacCartheism.
The red scare.
Limits on free speech worse than even today's post 911 levels.
If you weren't White you could not vote.
The head of the FBI being the most fearful controlling paranoid ever.
No air conditioning. No Color TV, hmmpt no TV period for most. No computers. No video games. 
Sure the 50'tys were great if you were a white upper class straight male. For the rest of us...

 

Message Edited by Choisya on 10-04-2008 07:15 AM
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: European perspective - Biden v. Palin.

I thought folks might to see the reports of this debate in 3 European newspapers.  The Guardian, Le Figaro and Der SpiegelShe is also being called the 'new Iron Lady' and compared to Mrs Thatcher, which may please a lot of Americans but worries me:smileyvery-happy:.

 

 

Frequent Contributor
READERJANE
Posts: 63
Registered: ‎01-21-2008
0 Kudos

Re: sara palin

From her clothes, they're not from the rack at the stores that I shop in(Macys) ,they're more Nordstroms.

Scribe
debbook
Posts: 1,823
Registered: ‎05-03-2008
0 Kudos

Re: sara palin

Never judge a book by it's cover! I guess wealthy depends on who you are comparing her to. To me you are wealthier than I because you shop at Macy's and I shop at Target.

I don't think she's wealthy compared to the politicians she is working with now.


READERJANE wrote:

From her clothes, they're not from the rack at the stores that I shop in(Macys) ,they're more Nordstroms.


 

 

 

I think that she is pandering to the executive working women  with the way that's she displays her wealth. It is just a shame that she does not have the wealth of knowledge or experience to go with her display of money. Of course this pandering just goes lock step with Mc Cain who pandered to women when he picked her. She does not speak for me, a woman, no matter what her wealth is

 

 

 I think she is an executive working woman, she is a governor. I'm not for her, but it's not because of her clothes. I just disagree with her political beliefs.

 

A room without books is like a body without a soul.~ Cicero...
"bookmagic418.blogspot.com
Frequent Contributor
mamiesmith
Posts: 29
Registered: ‎09-20-2008
0 Kudos

Re: sara palin

I am with you Esskay.  I also feel that Sara Palin is a very surface-oriented person.  There does not seem to be any "heart" in what she is saying--no depth.  At least one feels that McCain, Obama and Biden are convinced of what they are saying--one feels sincerity when listening.  I also did not know that she has money. 

 

I was horrified by her responses in the "Debate."   She came across as out of touch with what McCain is saying he will do for the country.  In most cases, she did not attempt to answer the questions.  She also seem to think that the American people would not understand that that was "crap" she was speaking.  I think our intelligence was under-estimated.  I wanted to hear policies that she and McCain would put in place, social issues addressed, and how they would clean up the "mess" we have in the financial markets.  She gave only general statements, and many of them without any substance.  Again I ask, why did McCain allow the Party to force him in to selecting

her?

 Mamie   www.rioboutique.biz/theunfoldingofarosebymamiesmith.

Scribe
debbook
Posts: 1,823
Registered: ‎05-03-2008
0 Kudos

Re: sara palin

What makes you think McCain was forced to pick her?

mamiesmith wrote:

I am with you Esskay.  I also feel that Sara Palin is a very surface-oriented person.  There does not seem to be any "heart" in what she is saying--no depth.  At least one feels that McCain, Obama and Biden are convinced of what they are saying--one feels sincerity when listening.  I also did not know that she has money. 

 

I was horrified by her responses in the "Debate."   She came across as out of touch with what McCain is saying he will do for the country.  In most cases, she did not attempt to answer the questions.  She also seem to think that the American people would not understand that that was "crap" she was speaking.  I think our intelligence was under-estimated.  I wanted to hear policies that she and McCain would put in place, social issues addressed, and how they would clean up the "mess" we have in the financial markets.  She gave only general statements, and many of them without any substance.  Again I ask, why did McCain allow the Party to force him in to selecting

her?

 Mamie   www.rioboutique.biz/theunfoldingofarosebymamiesmith.


 

A room without books is like a body without a soul.~ Cicero...
"bookmagic418.blogspot.com
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians. Health care.

The BBC is definitely not a 'socialist' organisation and was set up by a Conservative government several years before the first Labour government.  It is a national service financed by subscription but there is no political element and it's Charter forbids any.

 

Socialism is an economic theory, not a political one.   Socialism simply means government control of the means of production, which the BBC is.  A socialist economy can be a monarchy, a republic (as in much of Europe), a democracy (though I don't know of any of those), a dictatorship (Venezuela, for example,and Cuba), an oligarchy (China), etc.  Thus, having no political element is a totally different thing from being socialist.  

 

I do recognize that some people believe that socialism means political liberalism, but that's a misuse of the term.  It is urely an economic theory.  

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians.

I disagree with several of your assertions, agree in part with some others.  No society is perfect, certainly the 50s weren't, and ours today isn't, but still on balance I think the 50s were a healthier time for our country and its values than today.  But we obviously won't agree on that. 


TiggerBear wrote:

Everyman wrote:

I don't want another person raised on 1950'tys values running the country.

 

And just what is wrong with 50s values?  They were pretty darn good values.  Sure, we had some issues to deal with, mlstly concerning civil rights, but the streets were safe, there was no gang activity to speak of, children were raised to be respectful to their elders, college was affordable, nobody wore their pants hanging half way down their butt, people read books instead of spending all their hours playing video games, if we wanted to watch movies we went to the theater for a social community event instead of holing up in our houses with DVDs,  we had just come out of as good a war as there could be, America was the envy of the world.  

 

We should be so lucky as to go back to 50s values.


 


Where to start... hmmm
Spousal abuse was legal.
Child abuse was legal, and expected.
Homosexuality was not just illegal, but considered a mental illness as well.
Collage may have been cheaper, but fewer people were able to afford it. Not to mention the adverage education level was less than full high school, for the adverage citizen.
Trust a yankee to not understand exactly how bad racism was in the south. Much less the rest of the country.
Common place use of amphetamines for diet drugs, house wives hopped up on speed.
Presexual revolution. 
Cancer was fatal guaranteed. As were most traumatic injuries.
MacCartheism.
The red scare.
Limits on free speech worse than even today's post 911 levels.
If you weren't White you could not vote.
The head of the FBI being the most fearful controlling paranoid ever.
No air conditioning. No Color TV, hmmpt no TV period for most. No computers. No video games. 
 
Sure the 50'tys were great if you were a white upper class straight male. For the rest of us...
 
 
 

 


 

 

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians. Health care.

Opinions of doctors have since changed because they have done very well under the NHS and its success has been apparent to all.

 

Certainly not to all.  I still have a lot of family in England, and they are by no means all enamored of the NHS.   But it's good that you support it, since you were part of the government that so strongly promoted it. 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: sara palin

And plenty of people Iin our community shop at Value Village, Goodwill, and the local thrift store. Even you Target shoppers aren't at the bottom of the economic heap.

 


debbook wrote:

Never judge a book by it's cover! I guess wealthy depends on who you are comparing her to. To me you are wealthier than I because you shop at Macy's and I shop at Target.

I don't think she's wealthy compared to the politicians she is working with now.


READERJANE wrote:

From her clothes, they're not from the rack at the stores that I shop in(Macys) ,they're more Nordstroms.


 

 

 

I think that she is pandering to the executive working women  with the way that's she displays her wealth. It is just a shame that she does not have the wealth of knowledge or experience to go with her display of money. Of course this pandering just goes lock step with Mc Cain who pandered to women when he picked her. She does not speak for me, a woman, no matter what her wealth is

 

 

 I think she is an executive working woman, she is a governor. I'm not for her, but it's not because of her clothes. I just disagree with her political beliefs.

 


 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Bibliophile
thewanderingjew
Posts: 2,247
Registered: ‎12-18-2007
0 Kudos

Re: sara palin

what am i to do? i shop everywhere? would we judge biden by where he buys his clothes or gets his haircuts or transplants? why put anyone down for their personal habits when we can't even know the full story. biden might have more money than she does. does anyone know where he gets his shoes, for instance? who would care?

g

Distinguished Bibliophile
KathyS
Posts: 6,898
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: European perspective - Biden v. Palin.

[ Edited ]

I just read The Guardian, not the other two, as yet, but this one article did give an accurate account of what I witnessed.  But, I personally have to differ with this one statement: "her folksy, populist tone may have given her the edge with viewers."

 

I, and most of the women I know,  get *turned off* with this kind of speech.  Her, gosh, golly... darn it...soccer mom, six pack, voice, drives me up the wall.  She skirted issues with her - down home, down to earth - verbiage...saying very little to address the 'main' issues that were directed towards her.  She can give her quips, and take up air time, that's her choice, but it didn't "give her the edge" with me.  

 

Anyone going into the wide world of big politics, better be well prepared to meet people who are going to present tuff questions, and want answers that are not going to sound like she just fell off the turnip truck!


Choisya wrote:

I thought folks might to see the reports of this debate in 3 European newspapers.  The Guardian, Le Figaro and Der SpiegelShe is also being called the 'new Iron Lady' and compared to Mrs Thatcher, which may please a lot of Americans but worries me:smileyvery-happy:.

 

 


 

Message Edited by KathyS on 10-04-2008 11:10 AM