Home | E32 Lounge Forum | Post New Message | Search | Contact Moderator | Sign In  












Click to make a donation to support BimmerBoard
Specialty Forums
Garage Forum
Navigation A/V
Bluetooth
For Sale
Off-Topic
Detailing
///M
Kill Stories
Group Buys
Vanos Forum
TEST FORUM

Forums for Current Model BMW's
1 Series E81
3 Series E90
5 Series E60
6 Series E63/E64
7 Series E65/E66
7 Series F01/02 NEW
X3 E83
X5 E70
X6 E71
Z4 E85
MINI Cooper

Forums for Past Model BMW's
2002
3 Series E21
3 Series E30
3 Series E36
3 Series E46
5 Series E12
5 Series E28
5 Series E34
5 Series E39
6 Series E24
7 Series E23
7 Series E32
7 Series E38
8 Series E31
X5 E53
Z3
Z8 E52
CS E9
Senior Six E3

Model-specific Lounges
E32 Lounge
E38 Lounge

Regional Forums
Australia
Canada
United Kingdom
Netherlands

Forums for Local BMW Car Clubs
Dallas
Southern California
Minneapolis
Atlanta






Return to the forum index E32 Lounge Forum


Subject: Re: From findings by the World Health Org
Author: rlomba8204 : member since January, 2006 : 141 posts
Posted on: 2007-08-20 17:32:54

Oh no, you've fed the troll.

Shayne, here's my take on the WHO: they have an agenda, shockingly. They and the UN folks are, as you know, perfectly unbiased. And to my left, I have this bridge to sell . . . .

On a more serious note, I am familiar with the report, and it is talking about funding mechanisms. Funding mechanisms are important, no doubt. We have issues here due to skewed tax incentives, state by state risk and regulatory pools, excess litigation, and an uneven economic field vis a vis socialized systems. But this is not quality of care. The two are different.

If you really want to know the truth, what motivated my original rant was all this slamming of how we do things here. We have issues w/r/t healthcare. I said that originally, and I am aware of it. But for people to say, as many have said here, that the US has these issues because we as a society either don't give a shit about the poor, or are favoring the rich, have no sense of community, or whatever non-sensical reason was offered, is utter non-sense and ignores two key realities:

First, sovereign countries and peoples can organize important social policy decisions in whatever manner they so choose. In 1994, the American people, through their elected representatives, declined socialized care as proposed by former President Clinton. Was every aspect of that plan horrible? Not at all. There were a number of very good ideas in that plan. However, the US is trying to figure out a way, and we are lyrching there in fits and starts, to harness the best that competition has to offer, in terms of quality and innovation, while guaranteeing as much coverage as possible. What proponents of socialized medicine seem to forget is that while you do get everyone covered, you lose a lot of quality. I am not trying to piss all over socialized systems, but the accounts here, in terms of their rosiness, are far different than the ones you see in the medical press. And, there is a cost. You just tax everyone to do it. That's okay, but nothing is free. In our defense, we have managed to increase the numbered of insured people here to the point where 15% of the American people are uninsured. Still too high, IMO, but we will do better. But to do better, you still must, absolutely, link cost to use, or you get rampant inflation. What two areas of the US economy, btw, are characterized by rampant, prolonged inflation? You guessed it, the two sectors with the most government money and where people don't pay for the consequences of their choices -- medicine and higher education. There has to be a way to get quality care to everyone, but do it in an economically and medically sound manner. We can do better, no doubt. But you all seem to think you have done as well as you can, because you have simply gone to a single payer system. Not the case.

Second, my original post was harsh in terms of characterizing the rest of the world, no doubt about it. But the reality is that history demonstrates, unequivocally, that the western democracies are strongest when they are united, economically, politically, and militarily. Not to conquer, but as a force for peace and stability through trade and commerce and application of the rule of law. Unfortunately, the definite trend of the post-Soviet period has been for most of our close western friends to take a vacation from history and act as if mere words, with no real backing, will get it done. The best role for a military is that thug regimes will know you have it, and then, thank God hopefully, you will never need to use it. Does this mean Canada needs a huge army to prevent a Russian invasion? No. But it does mean that your country should have a large enough military budget to fulfill your country's obligations with NATO (it doesn't) in Kosovo and Afghanistan. And if Iran does acquire a nuclear weapon, and puts it atop a missile, will your country contribute to defending itself against those missiles in terms of missile defense? Your last PM said absolutely not, because he knows if Iran or the North Koreans lob a missile our way, and it happens to head your way, we will still shoot it down if at all humanly possible. So why pay for what the US will do anyways? Maybe, if we're really good, you'll let us put a couple of radars there. I know, I know, everyone makes fun of missile defense, but mutual deterrence doesn't work with lunatics and terrorists. That's what I am trying to drive at. When you take this huge investment that the US has to make in our military to help keep the peace around the world (North and South Korea too, don't forget), I resent it when I then see Europeans act so superior at the larger investments they can make in social infrastructure. Even Iraq. I don't want to rehash the pros and cons of the Iraq war, but it is very possible, and tragic to me, that if the western powers had been resolute against undermining the sanctions regime, and insisting on regime change in that country, we could have achieved the same result with potentially far less bloodshed. China and Russia, well I don't expect much from them. But for France's former leader to be basically in bed with Hussein, and for Germany's old PM to now be on Putin's payroll, this is just shameful. (On this later point, Tom Lantos, Dem. of CA (actually San Francisco, no conservative hot-bed!), certainly no Bush-lover, called Schroeder a political prostitute recently for this reason.)

Listen, while I would love it if the UN could actually be a credible world body, it won't happen simply because there are too many thugs running many countries, including two on the security council (Russia and China). In that case, the burden will fall on the industrialized democracies to keep peace and stability in the world. My point is that your country can't help us do that while we carry your defense burden in these areas. Again, this is harsh, but it is the truth, irrespective of whether you like it.

The E32 Lounge Forum | Message Thread:

The E32 Lounge Forum requires users to register before posting new messages.

Click Here to Sign In / Register


Mortgage | Loans | Myspace Layouts | Free Credit Report | Loans Bad Credit

Make a donation to support BimmerBoard
Home | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Glossary | Advertising

Questions, comments, problems, please email webmaster@bimmerboard.com

©Copyright 2003-2008 BimmerBoard, LLC, All Rights Reserved.
No content from this web site may be reproduced or copied in any
form without the express written consent of BimmerBoard, LLC.

The BMW name and logos are registered trademarks of BMW AG
and BMW of North America, LLC.