why not "Sir?

In message Flame
of the West spoke these staves:
>
> Paul S. Person wrote:
>>
>> This is the nature of the medical system in our country: that
>> even those with medical insurance often receive substandard care.
>> Never mind what those without medical insurance receive. The
>> reason is quite clear: it's all about money, not medical care.
>> The solution is equally clear, just unpalatable and very hard to
>> achieve.
>
> I agree with your analysis, but unlike you, I do not see a clear
> solution. If I may ask, what is your (unpalatable and hard to
> achieve) solution?

Any treatment will always have a price, and the resources will always
be limited (at least in a foreseeable future), so I suspect that
there will always be some treatments that will be unavailable due to
a lack of resources (this could be economic resources, but also a
lack of personel trained to give that particular treatment).

Nevertheless it seems that a substantial publicly owned and operated
health service offering free and equal access to all available
treatments does at least reduce this particular problem. The price
is, of course, a substantial increase in taxes . . .

I'd be the last to suggest that the Scandinavian model is perfect --
I don't know what the overall taxation is in Denmark, but I pay about
half my income in taxes and a 25% VAT on top of that on anything I
purchase, so it is certainly a rather costly model, but on the other
hand I don't have to worry if I can afford the treatment I need, and
it is not 'about money' to the same degree (there are other problems,
of course -- the capacity doesn't always fit the need, and so we get
waiting lists). Personally I am quite comfortable with this model and
I am happy to pay my taxes (if my income increases, 62% of the
increase will be payable in taxes), and wouldn't feel safe in a
system where I would have to be concerned about the coverage of my
medical insurance, but that doesn't mean that I think it is a
universally applicable solution -- it would be one of the cases where
I would advocate moral relativity

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

Truth in science can be defined as the working hypothesis
best suited to open the way to the next better one.
- Konrad Lorenz
 >> Stay informed about: why not ""Sir? 

Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> In message Flame
> of the West spoke these staves:
>> Paul S. Person wrote:
>>> This is the nature of the medical system in our country: that
>>> even those with medical insurance often receive substandard care.
>>> Never mind what those without medical insurance receive. The
>>> reason is quite clear: it's all about money, not medical care.
>>> The solution is equally clear, just unpalatable and very hard to
>>> achieve.
>> I agree with your analysis, but unlike you, I do not see a clear
>> solution. If I may ask, what is your (unpalatable and hard to
>> achieve) solution?
>
> Any treatment will always have a price, and the resources will always
> be limited (at least in a foreseeable future), so I suspect that
> there will always be some treatments that will be unavailable due to
> a lack of resources (this could be economic resources, but also a
> lack of personel trained to give that particular treatment).
>
> Nevertheless it seems that a substantial publicly owned and operated
> health service offering free and equal access to all available
> treatments does at least reduce this particular problem. The price
> is, of course, a substantial increase in taxes . . .
>
> I'd be the last to suggest that the Scandinavian model is perfect --
> I don't know what the overall taxation is in Denmark, but I pay about
> half my income in taxes and a 25% VAT on top of that on anything I
> purchase, so it is certainly a rather costly model, but on the other
> hand I don't have to worry if I can afford the treatment I need, and
> it is not 'about money' to the same degree (there are other problems,
> of course -- the capacity doesn't always fit the need, and so we get
> waiting lists). Personally I am quite comfortable with this model and
> I am happy to pay my taxes (if my income increases, 62% of the
> increase will be payable in taxes), and wouldn't feel safe in a
> system where I would have to be concerned about the coverage of my
> medical insurance, but that doesn't mean that I think it is a
> universally applicable solution -- it would be one of the cases where
> I would advocate moral relativity

I think that this may be the way the U.S. is heading. Our current
system has two huge disadvantages that your model would solve:
(1) so many people get left out, and (2) our businesses incur the large
cost of insurance and therefore become less globally competitive.

The problem getting there is that the downside (increased taxes) is
immediate and visible while the upside (solving (1) and (2)) is less
visible to the middle class and less immediate. Perhaps this is what
Paul was talking about with his unpalatable solution. Our liberals have
tried to avoid this pain by keeping employers in the mix, which would
solve (1) but not (2). Our conservatives have advocated medical savings
accounts, would solve (2) but not (1). I would not favor any system
that did not solve both problems.

The things I would worry about in such a system:

(A) I want to retain the right to received additional care which I would
pay for out of my pocket. (Don't know how things work in Denmark, but
this is illegal in Canada for example.)

(B) I'd like to see people who eat, drink, or smoke too much have to
kick in some extra payments. Why should I have to subsidize someone's
self-destructive lifestyle?

(C) I'd want to see firewalls built in to prevent euthanasia and
encouraging suicide.

(D) I'd want to exclude unnecessary medical procedures and prescriptions
such as cosmetic surgery and contraceptives (a lifestyle choice and not
a medical condition).

(E) Everything must be included (in our system, eye and dental care are
typically not covered by insurance).

(F) Cost containment and strictly curtailing the role of greedy lawyers
(who are always suing over everything).

(G) Dramatic cuts in spending elsewhere in the government to help
cushion the tax shock (perhaps we could stop fighting unnecessary wars
everywhere? You guys don't *really* need us stationing troops over
there, do you?).

(H) Extreme vigilance that this doesn't lead to increased illegal
immigration. Zero coverage for anyone not already here by the date of
enactment.


-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
 >> Stay informed about: why not ""Sir? 

Flame of the West wrote:

<snip>

> The things I would worry about in such a system:
>
> (A) I want to retain the right to received additional care which I would
> pay for out of my pocket. (Don't know how things work in Denmark, but
> this is illegal in Canada for example.)
>
This is perfectly compatibly with a social healthcare system: in the UK
we have the National Health Service and private sector healthcare.
Everyone contributes National Insurance; those who chose to and can
afford it also pay for private healthcare - they do this to get their
own room in hospital and to circumvent any waiting lists.

Actually, there is a lot of (in my opinion unfounded and ideologically
motivated) criticism of the NHS, and the model that is usually cited as
an alternative is the US system of personal health insurance. But it's
not a serious proposition: the NHS is generally speaking popular and any
government that tried such a drastic reform of the system would almost
certainly be committing electoral suicide. While a few die-hard
Thatcherites might occasionally float the idea, no-one in a position of
authority in the Tory party would dream of supporting such an idea,
whatever their private views.

> (B) I'd like to see people who eat, drink, or smoke too much have to
> kick in some extra payments. Why should I have to subsidize someone's
> self-destructive lifestyle?
>
Well, I don't know about the US, but in the UK smokers pay a huge amount
of tax on every pack so in fact are subsidising their own future
treatment. Duty on alcohol isn't as high as some parts of Europe, but it
certainly isn't the lowest.

> (D) I'd want to exclude unnecessary medical procedures and prescriptions
> such as cosmetic surgery and contraceptives (a lifestyle choice and not
> a medical condition).
>
> (E) Everything must be included (in our system, eye and dental care are
> typically not covered by insurance).
>
> (F) Cost containment and strictly curtailing the role of greedy lawyers
> (who are always suing over everything).
>
> (G) Dramatic cuts in spending elsewhere in the government to help
> cushion the tax shock (perhaps we could stop fighting unnecessary wars
> everywhere? You guys don't *really* need us stationing troops over
> there, do you?).
>
No, we don't. However, I suspect that America does, not just as a
forward base to deploy from, but also to be in a position to counter the
resurgence of Russian ambitions.

> (H) Extreme vigilance that this doesn't lead to increased illegal
> immigration. Zero coverage for anyone not already here by the date of
> enactment.
>
To be honest I think this is largely a myth (again ideologically
motivated): the sort of countries with poor healthcare systems are
unlikely to have large number of sick individuals who can afford to
travel for free healthcare, while those who can afford to travel are
likely to be able to afford it in their own country anyway. In fact,
many dental patients in the UK were (perhaps still are) travelling to
eastern Europe for dental work because the government made a total pig's
ear of reforming NHS dentistry (incidentally, they were *paying* for the
treatment).

I think you make some valid points (although of course I disagree on
euthanasia and contraception, but then you are hardly going to have a
different point of view!), and while, like Troels, I am not going to
claim the NHS is perfect, or even only slightly flawed, I am at least
reassured that if I fall ill tomorrow I will get the treatment I need
within a reasonable time. I think most European's look at the US
'healthcare' system with horror.

Jamie
 >> Stay informed about: why not ""Sir? 

Jamie Armstrong wrote:
> Flame of the West wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The things I would worry about in such a system:
>>
>> (A) I want to retain the right to received additional care which I
>> would pay for out of my pocket. (Don't know how things work in
>> Denmark, but this is illegal in Canada for example.)
>>
> This is perfectly compatibly with a social healthcare system: in the UK
> we have the National Health Service and private sector healthcare.
> Everyone contributes National Insurance; those who chose to and can
> afford it also pay for private healthcare - they do this to get their
> own room in hospital and to circumvent any waiting lists.

I suspect that Canada outlaws private treatment because most of their
population lives close to the U.S., so one can always come down here and
get treated. There are many hospitals close to the Canadian border that
mostly live on Canadian patients. This allows Canadians to pretend
that rich and poor all get the same level of treatment. Without the
American safety valve, I suspect that there would be pressure among
Canadians to legalize private health care.

> Actually, there is a lot of (in my opinion unfounded and ideologically
> motivated) criticism of the NHS, and the model that is usually cited as
> an alternative is the US system of personal health insurance. But it's
> not a serious proposition: the NHS is generally speaking popular and any
> government that tried such a drastic reform of the system would almost
> certainly be committing electoral suicide. While a few die-hard
> Thatcherites might occasionally float the idea, no-one in a position of
> authority in the Tory party would dream of supporting such an idea,
> whatever their private views.

I'm surprised to hear that the American system is suggested as a model.
It's not the worst system, but Americans as a whole are not happy with
it, except those on top who are getting rich off it.

>> (B) I'd like to see people who eat, drink, or smoke too much have to
>> kick in some extra payments. Why should I have to subsidize someone's
>> self-destructive lifestyle?
>>
> Well, I don't know about the US, but in the UK smokers pay a huge amount
> of tax on every pack so in fact are subsidising their own future
> treatment. Duty on alcohol isn't as high as some parts of Europe, but it
> certainly isn't the lowest.

Well, we have high taxes too, but we have a problem you don't, namely
the existence among us of sovereign Indian nations. They run casinos
and sell cigarettes without collecting taxes because they can. You can
order tax-free cigarettes from Indian websites, and many do. I'm not
complaining about this, but I am observing that it means that collecting
the tax at the time of purchase won't work for the health care system.
That's why I'd nail smokers at time of treatment.

>> (D) I'd want to exclude unnecessary medical procedures and
>> prescriptions such as cosmetic surgery and contraceptives (a lifestyle
>> choice and not a medical condition).
>>
>> (E) Everything must be included (in our system, eye and dental care
>> are typically not covered by insurance).
>>
>> (F) Cost containment and strictly curtailing the role of greedy
>> lawyers (who are always suing over everything).
>>
>> (G) Dramatic cuts in spending elsewhere in the government to help
>> cushion the tax shock (perhaps we could stop fighting unnecessary wars
>> everywhere? You guys don't *really* need us stationing troops over
>> there, do you?).
>>
> No, we don't. However, I suspect that America does, not just as a
> forward base to deploy from, but also to be in a position to counter the
> resurgence of Russian ambitions.

At the risk of being accused of heresy, I don't really see why it's
America's business to counter Russian ambitions in Europe. They're not
the USSR. They only invade neighboring countries when those countries
moronically persecute their Russian-speaking minorities. For the most
part, the Russians are content to throw their weight around
economically, which they are well poised to do since they control
Europe's gas supplies. That's not great, but we put up with much worse
from the foul sheiks and dictators who control so much of the world's
oil supply. So to be honest, I don't see any point to still having NATO
around. But in terms of saving money, the best thing we could do is
disengage from the Middle East. I think if we did that, the oil would
keep flowing because it's in everyone's interest that it does.

>> (H) Extreme vigilance that this doesn't lead to increased illegal
>> immigration. Zero coverage for anyone not already here by the date of
>> enactment.
>>
> To be honest I think this is largely a myth (again ideologically
> motivated): the sort of countries with poor healthcare systems are
> unlikely to have large number of sick individuals who can afford to
> travel for free healthcare, while those who can afford to travel are
> likely to be able to afford it in their own country anyway. In fact,
> many dental patients in the UK were (perhaps still are) travelling to
> eastern Europe for dental work because the government made a total pig's
> ear of reforming NHS dentistry (incidentally, they were *paying* for the
> treatment).

I don't really know to what extent it's a myth, but certainly it would
be politically necessary to exclude future illegals from treatment.

> I think you make some valid points (although of course I disagree on
> euthanasia and contraception, but then you are hardly going to have a
> different point of view!), and while, like Troels, I am not going to
> claim the NHS is perfect, or even only slightly flawed, I am at least
> reassured that if I fall ill tomorrow I will get the treatment I need
> within a reasonable time. I think most European's look at the US
> 'healthcare' system with horror.
>
> Jamie

"Horror" is a little strong. It's not a bad system for those who are in
it, though it is wasteful and expensive and chases jobs out of the U.S.
The problem of course is that not everyone is in it.


-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
 >> Stay informed about: why not ""Sir? 

Paul S. Person kirjoitti:

> I claimed that his information was based on activities happening a
> decade ago. I also indicated that these items are ongoing, just not in
> the way he appears to believe them to be. /All/ the major events he
> refers to are from the 1990's or before. His belief that they
> represent this country today is what distorts his viewpoint.

I'm not gonna continue with this nonsense anymore.
You claim that "outlawing" is a wrong word because
the continuing attempts to do so have not yet been
successful, and that "purging" is a wrong word because
army cannot actively search for gays, ignoring that
they have managed to kick out 11 000 gays anyway, etc.
You are entitled to your opinion of course, but to
claim that this is evidence for total ignorace on
the events of the last 10 years is simply absurd.

If you had just admitted this, I would probably not
have paid any more attention to your original assertion,
that attacks on abortion clinics are a thing of the past
as well. But thanks to your persistance, I decided to
take a look at that too, and guess what I found??

# July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida was the target of an arson.
# December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov
cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the
building and no damage was caused.
# September 13, 2006 David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan crashed
his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He
then doused the lobby in gasoline and then started a fire. McMenemy
committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing
abortions, however Edgerton is not an abortion clinc.
# April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin,
Texas contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury
or death. A bomb squad detonated the device.
# May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned
Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
# December 6, 2007: Two unidentified persons set fire to a Planned
Parenthood clinic in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

I would like to thank you for all this new information.
I honestly did imagine that after 9/11 the very idea
of terrorism would have become distasteful for even
the most hot-headed Americans. I now see I was wrong.

Morgil
 >> Stay informed about: why not ""Sir? 

Morgil wrote:

<snip>
> I honestly did imagine that after 9/11 the very idea
> of terrorism would have become distasteful for even
> the most hot-headed Americans. I now see I was wrong.

You were wrong almost immediately after 9/11. Don't you remember the
anthrax scare?


-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
 >> Stay informed about: why not ""Sir? 

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:35:09 -0400, Flame of the West
wrote:

>Paul S. Person wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> This is the nature of the medical system in our country: that even
>> those with medical insurance often receive substandard care. Never
>> mind what those without medical insurance receive. The reason is quite
>> clear: it's all about money, not medical care. The solution is equally
>> clear, just unpalatable and very hard to achieve.
>
>I agree with your analysis, but unlike you, I do not see a clear
>solution. If I may ask, what is your (unpalatable and hard to achieve)
>solution?

I'm afraid I was being ... well, perhaps "ironic" would be the kindest
characterization. I can think of all sorts of nifty ideas, but whether
any of them would work (even if they could be done) is not at all
certain.

But I can give some examples:

1) Over-prescription by doctors of drugs. This includes using drugs
for non-medical conditions (that is, the normal wear-and-tear of
life), using drugs whose effects are not fully understood, using
multiple drugs whose interactions are not fully understood or, if
understood, not actually considered, using drugs inappropriately
(hence the various antibiotic-resistant strains which may well result
in the end of the Antibiotic Age and the return to pre-penicillen
conditions) -- the list goes on. Here I am inclined to well-publicized
criminalization: a doctor who prescribes drugs recklessly needs some
jail time, and his colleagues need some deterrence. And I am not
interested in excuses, especially "standards of care" arguments. This
doesn't just involve the situation recently publicized with Heath
Ledger; this would include cases such as the old woman who, found
wandering by her children, was diagnosed by her doctor as having
Alzheimers and yet, when the children sought a second opinion, it
turned out that she did not have Alzheimers, but had simply been
drugged to the gills by her doctor. Negligence. Reckless disregard.
Jail time.

2) Medical insurance has lost sight of its purpose. The entire point
of insurance is to spread risk. People purchase fire insurance and pay
into it; only those who have fires collect. Medical insurance, if it
existed, would work the same way: the well would pay the bills of the
sick. Here I am inclined to require medical insurance companies to
accept, into any plan they offer, whoever applies, with no waiting
periods, and no variance in total premium (different plans can have
different premiums). The amount of the total premium a particular
individual pays may vary depending on how much is paid by his or her
employer (for example), but the total received cannot vary by the
individual's age or medical condition. This would be very hard to do,
politically speaking, although it does /not/ involve a single-payer
plan and would leave the medical insurance companies intact, if less
profitable.

3) The drug industry poses too many problems to list here or anywhere
else. Here is one that I don't think has been considered: a recent
issue of (IIRC) /Consumer Reports/ reported that 47% of adults in the
USA had at least one prescription. What happens if a national disaster
interrupts the flow of those drugs? If they are actually medically
necessary, then 47% of our adult population will be hurting or dead
(some of these drugs list "death" as one of the possible consequences
for not continuing to take them, talk about addictive) in a few
months. This, I suggest, is a high enough percentage to make this a
national security issue. And why are so many drugs dispensed? Because
the drug industry advertises, not just to doctors (who should be
informed of truly new drugs) but directly to consumers. How many
previously-unknown "diseases" have been "identified" by the drug
industry over the last decade? I don't really have a solution here,
short of declaring the drug companies "illegal organizations" and
treating them accordingly, which even I can see is a bit over the top,
but perhaps our "national security agencies" can come up with one.

The core problem is behavior. We live in a society where men are
encouraged to seek medical attention for any twinge in the upper parts
of their body -- and then wonder why the Emergency Rooms are
over-crowded. The belief that doctors should be in charge of our lives
needs to change to the belief that doctors are like auto mechanics --
you only use them when you need them.

Thanks for asking. Sorry for the ranting. You can take it all as
"IMHO" and "".
--
"A portent, therefore, happens not contrary to nature,
but contrary to what we know as nature."
 >> Stay informed about: why not ""Sir? 

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:32:03 -0600, "Michelle J. Haines"
wrote:

>Paul S. Person wrote:
>>
>> As to starvation, the article claims that this is painless if the
>> patient is properly medicated; one wonders how, exactly, that could
>> ever be verified. The article, on the other hand, does not appear to
>> know anything about "another woman"; perhaps you should correct it. If
>> you have a reference; the article is very heavily footnoted.
>
>He was with the other woman for eleven years and already had children
>with her.
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/23/national/23schiavo.html

Thanks for the link. It's always nice to have something substantial to
deal with.

So, the time-line is:

1993 -- Schiavo determines, based on well-considered medical opinion,
that his wife will never recover (which is correct, given the state of
her brain).
1995 -- This is eleven years from 2006, and is, it appears when he met
the other woman.
1998 -- Schiavo petitions the court to appoint a guardian for Terri
who can make an objective determination as to whether or not her
feeding tube should be removed.

I suppose, given that time-line, that it would not be unreasonable to
connect his meeting the "other woman" with his petitioning the court.
However, the claim was

>> Whoa, that's a bad example. Terri's husband was all for keeping her
>> alive until he met another woman, then wanted her dead.

and here we have a three-year gap between meeting the other woman and
petitioning the court. That does not suggest that he "was all for
keeping her alive until he met another woman"; it suggests he thought
about it for three years or so first. And he gave up on her two years
before meeting the "other woman".

Still, it does help explain where FotW was coming from.
--
"A portent, therefore, happens not contrary to nature,
but contrary to what we know as nature."
 >> Stay informed about: why not ""Sir? 

Flame of the West wrote:

> Öjevind Lång wrote:
>> "Flame of the West" skrev i
>> meddelandet
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Reagan didn't go to church and no one minded.
>>
>> That was many years ago. Things seem to have regressed in the U.S. when
>> it comes to religioion.
>>
> Oh, come on! I followed that sentence with three examples from 2004 and
> 2008, and you snipped them!

OK, I'll argue that they were even less valid than the Reagan one.

> Obama had to *stop* going to church just to stay in the race.

Obama had to stop going to _that_ church. It's still important for him to
be seen as Christian, to combat the ongoing slander that he's Muslim.

> Romney would have helped himself by losing his religion.

But of course he wouldn't. He was the "wrong" religion, but if he'd
disavowed that, he'd have been not only the wrong religion, but a man
without conviction to boot. Analogous to being a Spanish Converso.

> And, of course, Lieberman has never been to church.

And never had a serious chance to be elected President - which I thought was
the argument.
--
derek
 >> Stay informed about: why not ""Sir? 

Jamie Armstrong wrote:

> Derek Broughton wrote:
>> Flame of the West wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Obama had to *stop* going to church just to stay in the race.
>>
>> Obama had to stop going to _that_ church. It's still important for him
>> to be seen as Christian, to combat the ongoing slander that he's Muslim.
>>
> "Slander"?? Steady on. It isn't slanderous to think that someone is a
> Muslim when they aren't: it's just incorrect.

It is certainly slanderous to spread a rumor known to be untrue, and I have
a great deal of trouble believing that everybody spreading this rumor is
simply ignorant. Really, I don't believe all Americans are ignorant
--
derek
 >> Stay informed about: why not ""Sir? 

"Flame of the West" skrev i meddelelsen


>>> (D) I'd want to exclude unnecessary medical procedures and prescriptions
>>> such as cosmetic surgery and contraceptives (a lifestyle choice and not
>>> a medical condition).

The pill I don't know about, since I'm not on it myself, but cosmetic
surgery is certainly not paid for by the public purse. Except things like
harelip or a face mauled in an accident, of course. Like the poor little
child some weeks ago who had her face chewed up by her stepfather's attack
dogs, before her mother finally managed to wrest her daughter free. Some
cosmetic conditions may reasonably be considered crippling.

>>> (E) Everything must be included (in our system, eye and dental care are
>>> typically not covered by insurance).

In Denmark dental care is partly covered. I pay two thirds or so myself.
Last time I went to the dentist and became one tooth dumber, I paid 716
Danish crowns (a little more than $100) myself, while the national health
insurance paid 209 crowns.
The local anaesthesia worked quite well; the most painful part of the
procedure was of course paying the bill.
I don't know if Denmark has the so-called "odontolog", but in Norway when
I was a boy you could go to dentist school for gratis treatment. My
stepfather did. Only you would be worked on by dentist trainees.
Dental care is gratis for school children. I had mine done at a dentist
shop on the school premises. Then some young adults end school, leave home,
and discover that they have to pay for dental care, now. And they don't see
a dentist for the next decade.

> At the risk of being accused of heresy, I don't really see why it's
> America's business to counter Russian ambitions in Europe. They're not
> the USSR. They only invade neighboring countries when those countries
> moronically persecute their Russian-speaking minorities.

It's worse than that. Granted that Chechnya is within the territory of
their nation-state, and home to some rather vicious insurgents, who
jump-started the second Chechen war by invading Dagestan and committed an
utter horror in Beslan, but Russian response has been over the top. It's
like if we Westerners in our war in Afghanistan quite *normally* killed 76
civilians here and a few hundred there, with only covert journalists able to
report it, reducing the cities to rubble rather than at least trying to
rebuild the country. And in Georgia they seem to have sprung a clever trap,
massaging the separatists in South Ossetia into provoking the Georgians into
military action. Sakashvili then gambled, and lost big time. Thus Russia
successfully blocked a Georgian membership of NATO for quite a while. NATO
will only admit members who are at peace, so as to help preserve that peace
and security. The musketeer-oath ("One for all, all for one") will not be
extended to someone in trouble and not already a member.

As for Western Europe, the Russians have restarted their airforce patrols
near Danish, Norwegian and British air space. There is no threat in that,
nor is it in any way illegal. It has compelled us to launch our own
interceptors much more frequently than a few years ago, to have an eye on
them, just like during the Soviet era. But such things are noticed, of
course.
Still, under present and foreseeable conditions I certainly don't think
we need US military presence in Europe for the purpose of defending us
against the Russians. They are neither as strong nor as aggressive as the
Soviets were. And their gas export to Western Europe makes them as well as
us much more vulnerable economically. Yes, Germany needs their gas (Denmark
and especially Norway have plenty of our own in the North Sea, and are also
exporting to the continent), but Russia needs that export revenue. For
starters, without it they couldn't have rebuilt their military muscle like
they have.
Nowadays, US military bases in Europe seem rather to be staging bases for
military action further afield.

> For the most part, the Russians are content to throw their weight around
> economically, which they are well poised to do since they control Europe's
> gas supplies. That's not great, but we put up with much worse from the
> foul sheiks and dictators who control so much of the world's oil supply.
> So to be honest, I don't see any point to still having NATO around.

I do. Or at least the Atlantic Pact. But I agree that you shouldn't
foot such a dominant bill. Then again, it's not like we're cajoling you
into having such a large defense budget. We choose ours, you yours.
I think some right-wingers [1] in your country have thought in terms of a
"freedom league" - if not an expanded NATO then an expanded Atlantic Pact,
with only democracies admitted. I am in general no right-winger myself, but
on that one I am cautiously open. It shouldn't be a militarist league that
sends in the marines anytime we feel like it, though.

> But in terms of saving money, the best thing we could do is disengage
> from the Middle East. I think if we did that, the oil would keep flowing
> because it's in everyone's interest that it does.

Afghanistan, or at least al Qaeda protected by the then government of
that country, attacked yours. Even though al Qaeda is not a country 911 was
a military attack against the USA as surely as if the Soviets had sent a
Kirov class ship up Chesapeake Bay and opened fire on land targets. It was
quite right that you, and we as NATO members, responded - although the
military and political tactics against terrorists must differ from those
against an attacking nation-state. But Iraq should have been left alone.
It wasn't, and now we'll most likely do more evil by simply pulling out than
by finishing the job - if we're at all able to. We started a two-front war,
and that was not very clever. Some idiot didn't read his SunTzu ---
We cannot in a foreseeable future make oil and gas irrelevant to our
needs. But by developing alternative energy sources we can reduce our
dependence on them. Then we will be politically stronger against the oil
exporting countries (say I, a citizen of Norway which exports quite a lot of
oil and gas). Less need for Arleigh Burke diplomacy to secure our jugular.
Less need to foot that bill, in money and lives and limbs, and less need to
feel guilty about going to foreign countries shooting. Yes, that would be
nice.
Lower oil prices would likely directly improve freedom in the sheikdoms
and other dictatorships too. It may sound paradoxical, but taxation does
promote freedom - the people with the purse will have to be listened to, so
long as they have some control of their own purse [2]. Whether it be the
British civil wars, which were partly between Parliament and King, and the
former won in part because they controlled taxation, or it be some despot
who rolls back freedoms for his people because his oil revenues rise and so
he does not need his subjects to pay for his guns and his goons.

[1] A very large and quite open category, I know. If the left wing somehow
converted to right-wingism, the level of quibbling would not subside by
either delta nor epsilon.

[2] That's what set off the American revolution, right? The Brits wanted to
tax the American colonies without permitting representation, and paid the
price.

Jon Lennart Beck.
 >> Stay informed about: why not ""Sir? 

Raven wrote:
> "Flame of the West" skrev i
> meddelelsen
>
>>>> (D) I'd want to exclude unnecessary medical procedures and
>>>> prescriptions such as cosmetic surgery and contraceptives (a
>>>> lifestyle choice and not a medical condition).
>
> The pill I don't know about, since I'm not on it myself, but cosmetic
> surgery is certainly not paid for by the public purse. Except things
> like harelip or a face mauled in an accident, of course. Like the poor
> little child some weeks ago who had her face chewed up by her
> stepfather's attack dogs, before her mother finally managed to wrest her
> daughter free. Some cosmetic conditions may reasonably be considered
> crippling.

Agreed.

>
>>>> (E) Everything must be included (in our system, eye and dental care
>>>> are typically not covered by insurance).
>
> In Denmark dental care is partly covered. I pay two thirds or so
> myself. Last time I went to the dentist and became one tooth dumber, I
> paid 716 Danish crowns (a little more than $100) myself, while the
> national health insurance paid 209 crowns.
> The local anaesthesia worked quite well; the most painful part of the
> procedure was of course paying the bill.
> I don't know if Denmark has the so-called "odontolog", but in Norway
> when I was a boy you could go to dentist school for gratis treatment.
> My stepfather did. Only you would be worked on by dentist trainees.
> Dental care is gratis for school children. I had mine done at a
> dentist shop on the school premises. Then some young adults end school,
> leave home, and discover that they have to pay for dental care, now.
> And they don't see a dentist for the next decade.

Do you see any logic to treating dental care separately from other
health care? "Too expensive" is not a good answer since that's the
argument against any government-run health care system.

>> At the risk of being accused of heresy, I don't really see why it's
>> America's business to counter Russian ambitions in Europe. They're
>> not the USSR. They only invade neighboring countries when those
>> countries moronically persecute their Russian-speaking minorities.
>
> It's worse than that. Granted that Chechnya is within the territory
> of their nation-state, and home to some rather vicious insurgents, who
> jump-started the second Chechen war by invading Dagestan and committed
> an utter horror in Beslan, but Russian response has been over the top.
> It's like if we Westerners in our war in Afghanistan quite *normally*
> killed 76 civilians here and a few hundred there, with only covert
> journalists able to report it, reducing the cities to rubble rather than
> at least trying to rebuild the country. And in Georgia they seem to
> have sprung a clever trap, massaging the separatists in South Ossetia
> into provoking the Georgians into military action. Sakashvili then
> gambled, and lost big time. Thus Russia successfully blocked a Georgian
> membership of NATO for quite a while. NATO will only admit members who
> are at peace, so as to help preserve that peace and security. The
> musketeer-oath ("One for all, all for one") will not be extended to
> someone in trouble and not already a member.

Perhaps admitting Ukraine might also be a bad idea, even if they aren't
already at war with Russia.

> As for Western Europe, the Russians have restarted their airforce
> patrols near Danish, Norwegian and British air space. There is no
> threat in that, nor is it in any way illegal. It has compelled us to
> launch our own interceptors much more frequently than a few years ago,
> to have an eye on them, just like during the Soviet era. But such
> things are noticed, of course.
> Still, under present and foreseeable conditions I certainly don't
> think we need US military presence in Europe for the purpose of
> defending us against the Russians. They are neither as strong nor as
> aggressive as the Soviets were. And their gas export to Western Europe
> makes them as well as us much more vulnerable economically. Yes,
> Germany needs their gas (Denmark and especially Norway have plenty of
> our own in the North Sea, and are also exporting to the continent), but
> Russia needs that export revenue. For starters, without it they
> couldn't have rebuilt their military muscle like they have.

Which is why I expect the Russians will behave themselves provided they
are given their due as a great regional power. Moving NATO to their
borders was unnecessarily provocative and probably helped motivate their
actions in Georgia.

> Nowadays, US military bases in Europe seem rather to be staging bases
> for military action further afield.
>
>> For the most part, the Russians are content to throw their weight
>> around economically, which they are well poised to do since they
>> control Europe's gas supplies. That's not great, but we put up with
>> much worse from the foul sheiks and dictators who control so much of
>> the world's oil supply. So to be honest, I don't see any point to
>> still having NATO around.
>
> I do. Or at least the Atlantic Pact. But I agree that you shouldn't
> foot such a dominant bill. Then again, it's not like we're cajoling you
> into having such a large defense budget. We choose ours, you yours.

We are living way beyond our means and I don't think it can go on much
longer. We're going to have to choose at some point between our
standard of living and our imperial pretensions. Neither of our
pathetic presidential candidates sees that.

> I think some right-wingers [1] in your country have thought in terms
> of a "freedom league" - if not an expanded NATO then an expanded
> Atlantic Pact, with only democracies admitted. I am in general no
> right-winger myself, but on that one I am cautiously open. It shouldn't
> be a militarist league that sends in the marines anytime we feel like
> it, though.

John McCain wants some sort of League of Democracies. Given that he's
an insane warmonger, he probably does envision a militarist league.

>> But in terms of saving money, the best thing we could do is disengage
>> from the Middle East. I think if we did that, the oil would keep
>> flowing because it's in everyone's interest that it does.
>
> Afghanistan, or at least al Qaeda protected by the then government of
> that country, attacked yours. Even though al Qaeda is not a country 911
> was a military attack against the USA as surely as if the Soviets had
> sent a Kirov class ship up Chesapeake Bay and opened fire on land
> targets. It was quite right that you, and we as NATO members, responded
> - although the military and political tactics against terrorists must
> differ from those against an attacking nation-state. But Iraq should
> have been left alone. It wasn't, and now we'll most likely do more evil
> by simply pulling out than by finishing the job - if we're at all able
> to. We started a two-front war, and that was not very clever. Some
> idiot didn't read his SunTzu ---

Agreed. It's hard to see how this administration will avoid going down
in history as the most geopolitically moronic in U.S. history. Jimmy
Carter must be delighted that someone has finally done worse than he did.

> We cannot in a foreseeable future make oil and gas irrelevant to our
> needs. But by developing alternative energy sources we can reduce our
> dependence on them. Then we will be politically stronger against the
> oil exporting countries (say I, a citizen of Norway which exports quite
> a lot of oil and gas). Less need for Arleigh Burke diplomacy to secure
> our jugular. Less need to foot that bill, in money and lives and limbs,
> and less need to feel guilty about going to foreign countries shooting.
> Yes, that would be nice.

We could stop shooting right now. Just leave and stop interfering. I
don't see why having pro-Western dictators in Middle Eastern countries
is so important. They'll sell to us whether they like us or hate us,
just like Hugo Chavez. Let them hate us at much as they want; our
money's still good.

> Lower oil prices would likely directly improve freedom in the
> sheikdoms and other dictatorships too. It may sound paradoxical, but
> taxation does promote freedom - the people with the purse will have to
> be listened to, so long as they have some control of their own purse
> [2]. Whether it be the British civil wars, which were partly between
> Parliament and King, and the former won in part because they controlled
> taxation, or it be some despot who rolls back freedoms for his people
> because his oil revenues rise and so he does not need his subjects to
> pay for his guns and his goons.
>
> [1] A very large and quite open category, I know. If the left wing
> somehow converted to right-wingism, the level of quibbling would not
> subside by either delta nor epsilon.
>
> [2] That's what set off the American revolution, right? The Brits
> wanted to tax the American colonies without permitting representation,
> and paid the price.
>
> Jon Lennart Beck.


-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
 >> Stay informed about: why not ""Sir? 

Derek Broughton wrote:

<snip>
>> Romney would have helped himself by losing his religion.
>
> But of course he wouldn't. He was the "wrong" religion, but if he'd
> disavowed that, he'd have been not only the wrong religion, but a man
> without conviction to boot. Analogous to being a Spanish Converso.
<snip>

Romney was seen as a man without conviction, given his 180-degree turn
on so many issues. What's one more flip-flop among so many?


-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
 >> Stay informed about: why not ""Sir?