US is a sick country? |
|
I found this article interesting. People in the UK are far healthier than people in the US. I was also surprised to read how much more money is spent on health care in the US. My personal experience is that I’ve felt farm more unhealthy here (England) and spend far more on health care. Though it appears that dramatically reverses in the older population. While I’m posting, I’ll digress to another article I read yesterday which I found interesting. The headline is sensationalist, and generally is a bit over the top. Also, please ignore the first half of the article which drudges on about our poor use of encryption. This takes away from his most important point: American’s political apathy and subconscious desire to be treated like children. Growing up in the US taught me that politicians are professional bull shit artists. They can’t be trusted and all we can do as voters is to give a vague guess as to how we think they’ll perform in office. This is now socially acceptable. Bush has used this acceptance to his advantage. There’s no need for him to give us the facts or even tell us what he’s up to. After all, we’re not going to believe him anyway. So his job is to be charming and remind us that he’s just like the rest us. All we have to do is blindly accept that the issues are simple, victimless, and that he’s taking care of them. This explains the low voter turn out, and why so few Americans really pay attention to the issues. It’s now gotten to the point that our leaders can do what they want without consequence. There are still the usual checks and balances, but US politicians seem to be increasingly good at circumventing these. Usually with big “classified” stamp, or with the war on terror excuse. Maybe I’m being cynical, but living in England has shown me that it doesn’t have to be like that. Sure there’s probably corruption here, but there’s no socially acceptable precedent for it, so it’s much harder to get away with. The public and the media here are obsessive (by US standards) about keeping their government in check and their best interests as a top priority. Tony Blair and other executive leaders regularly participate in debates about the issues. Not behind closed doors where we get a summary. These are prime time news shows, news paper discussions, etc. Everyone gets their points out in the open. From liberal to conservative and everything in the middle. At the end of the day, the government may or may not make a the decisions that you like, but they explain why. So why doesn’t this happen in the US. Are we really that lazy? Do we really just not care what our leaders do with their power? |
May 4th, 2006 @ 3:13 am
I agree completely. And I think it’s not all pointing at Americans being lazy. I agree there are lazy Americans that don’t care, but I think there are others that feel government is useless and keep from being politically active because they figure it won’t matter. America is a pop culture. The news networks here care more about the bottom line ($) at the end of the day more than reporting news.Where do you go, though? CNN, MSNBC, Fox, they all have their own agendas. Local news is an excellent source of information, but with all the Katrina mess going on down here, we watch hour after hour of people unable to get into their trailers or unable to move back into their public housing units or what the state government plans to do about it. The coverage of the mayors race has been good so far, but did you see the circus that we had running in the primary? It was absolutely nuts, but at least I felt New Orleans was being represented well. The last few presidential elections, I wonder where these candidates come from. The political parties are giant machines, churning out candidates that smile and look like someone the country can stand behind. And the machine supports the media, so the media supports the machine.There are too many similar thoughts on this subject, I don’t know where I’m going with this. I haven’t witnessed how the UK deals with its leaders, but we’re definitely too soft on ours. Bush actually stated in a press conference that he doesn’t want to release names of people that gave him advice about response to Hurricane Katrina because if he held all of his people accountable, then they wouldn’t give him advice. This is what we elected to lead us for 8 years. That is why our country is behaving the way it does.Anyway, maybe I’ll get back to this later. It’s a pretty disgusting topic. I feel I’m part of the indifferent majority, but part of that has to do with what matters most to me. I need to eat my breakfast, I’m still learning a lot about programming, I like to play volleyball, I need to sleep, and when I’m done with everything, I’ve got time to take a look at who to vote for. It’s not a part of my daily routine. It should be, but it isn’t. Lately, I’ve been paying attention at least on the local level, but I still went into the voter’s booth without much research on civil/criminal sheriffs or tax assessors or city council members. I voted for people I knew very little about. Some I had only seen campaign commercials for. And I had spent all that time researching who to vote for for mayor. It’s frustrating. Why do I have to watch another "Action News" piece on how someone can’t get the keys to their FEMA trailer and they’re living in their car when I could be learning about all of the candidates stances? Where can I even find that information? Campaign propaganda? I just want one place to go to find out all of that information. Not from a biased source, but from a reliable, neutral source. Isn’t that what the media is supposed to be? The newspaper and AM radio seem to be the best by a long shot.At any rate, I’ve rambled too long. More later if I find myself in the mood. Good topic, though.
May 4th, 2006 @ 7:21 am
You feel more unhealthy in the UK because you’re drinking a shitload of beer. I on the other hand feel much heathier in the US, as I no longer drink a shitload of man-in-a-box four nights a week. Such is working in Soho.
May 4th, 2006 @ 10:43 am
Doug, good point about where to find the relevant news. I remember giving up to apathy in the US now that I think about it. It was really hard to find a newspaper or tv show that presented the current events in any useful format. Most US papers and the news media in general fill their stories with irrelevant fluff. It’s impossible to understand what’s going on without having to concentrate and spend hours a day reading.
There are good reliable sources of information out there, but none of them are part of the main stream news press in the US. It’s like the US news media is scared of telling people what’s really going on. From Fox News to the Daily Show, they’re all just barking at us, with no real information.
May 6th, 2006 @ 5:34 am
you might want to visit http://www.yafll.com
May 8th, 2006 @ 3:33 am
I basically have a few quotes that to me shed light on the issue.Quote one."The juice has to be worth the squeeze" Girl Next door (movie)Basically to me this means that the outcome of voting getting involved all of that has to be worth something to people. Because this past election it was about saying no not trying to vote for a good leader. So essentially there is something broken in the political process if nobody seems attractive. I actually don’t think it is lazyness or apathy or dare i say it stupidity that stops people from voting. It’s that the people are very savy and I think people can smell bullshit and guess what there is a whole lot of bullshit in politics. Ask somebody why they don’t vote. It will for the most part be because non of the options seems that much different from the others. So you want people to vote? or care they have to feel like they are making a change. On a side.I thought that england would be this "land of freedom" this place were politics works etc…. I have to say I don’t think so. There is bullshit here the difference is that the political system allows for quick changes in power. Unlike US system. So the sleaze bags here have to worry about their jobs a little more. And I think england has plenty of social problems as well. Honestly I think the world’s spotlight is on the US because they pretty much have the economic and military superiority. And we have the cowboy as president. Honestly England is a great country but it has a more prominent in my eyes class system. It has a slightly socialized government and all the ills of said socialism.England doesn’t have the Freedom of speech… Ok I know they have less issues than US in regards to Human rights. But it kind of unsettles me that there is no such thing as "freedom of speech" here.Quote 2"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759patriot act. isn’t patrioticI blame corprate america. They have to much power. The goverment is controlled by them so they can make more money off of people. Wtf is that. Those corporations should be scared shitless of us. Saying you know what shell Fuck you I am not paying this much and having our government look after us and hit them with the righteous hamer of justice. But that doesn’t happen they are fucking us over so they can make a buck."I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."-Thomas Jefferson
May 8th, 2006 @ 3:34 am
awesome your AWESOME blog doesn’t support returns… Dont’ bother reading the next in BLOCK format
May 8th, 2006 @ 4:23 am
cheers… I also agree about not being able to get any real news about the policy making that goes on in DC. While most mainstream outlets try to be apolitical, they don’t sound any BS alarms when their analyst smell it coming. Further, all the other overtly political news sources are too one sided and too obnoxious too listen too for very long. SO you end up with a bunch of people who think their well informed–but are quiet sheep following the crowd, or dogs foaming at the mouth.
I don’t care so much about politics, just the policy
Where I prefer to learn about what’s going on…
-National Review
-The Altantic Monthly
-NPR
slightly related, I’m reading "Imperial Grunts" by Robert Kaplan. I highly recommend it.
May 8th, 2006 @ 10:41 am
Ashraf,
A few comments about your comment:
1) How is power in England turned over more rapidly? As you know the US requires and presidential election every 4 years and a turn over every 8 years. In the UK there is an election every 5 years, and no required turnover. I disagree that politicians in England are accountable for their actions because of the constant re-election cycle. If anything the constant re-election cycle hurts as much as it helps accountability. Look at the US congress where senators are spending more time on getting re-elected than doing their jobs.
I don’t think the structure of the English government is better than the US. I think the difference is that people here are more politically active and hold their government accountable for its actions. Poloticians are treated like public employees, not royalty. There are a probably dozens of reasons for this. Smaller country, cultural differences, etc. I’m sure a sociologist has the correct answer somewhere.
2) I don’t really understand your banking point. The US currency is controlled by the government, not the private organizations. I think your arguing that capitalism is a form of monarchy, where the richest guy has power over all. There are a number of checks and balances in the US system to stop this from happening. The two biggest that I can think of are 1) anti trust laws and 2) class action law suits. With gas prices as they are and oil company profits at a record high, the oil companies are probably itching for a good class action law suit… maybe I should start one… maybe someone already has.
3) You seemed to take my argument as a England is better than the US rant. Which it wasn’t. I’m saying English citizens hold their politicians as public employees and keep them in line. Where US citizens appear to ignore their politicians and generally let them do what they want. It feels as though poloticians in the US are protected from public opinion. And only at election time does the public get a say. And then no one shows up… That’s the problem
My overall opinion about England vs US is probably better in another post. But I’ll sum it up as most of the differences are from the core political values of each country. The US is a fully capitalist republic, where the UK has a far more left wing hybrid capitalist/socialist republic. Those differences do NOT explain the political apathy in the US. The US needs a big shake up culturally if it’s going to turn around.
May 8th, 2006 @ 11:41 am
Well first of all my post apears to be very rambling like. Because honestly I had all these neat little breaks in it by hitting the enter key. That kind of broke up the post. And made it very legiable and now it looks like poop.The banking quote was by Thomas Jefferson it was basically in refrence to the dominating bussiness enterprise at the time the banks. And talking about not allowing big bussiness to force it’s will on the people.The basic thing I was trying to say about the USA is that politics in the USA is dominated by money it’s all about how much money you can throw at a problem. Bush won the last election because he had more money and a better run Marketing plan. I also think that most people don’t hold their politicians "accountable" because to them it doesn’t really effect them yet. They will pretty much suck up anything unless it makes them hungry or poor. Of course the different types of political systems explains apathy. Why do people in England care so much about health care and what’s happening with the NHS? Because it’s there only form of health care if they get sick and that gets fucked up, than it directly messes with them. When you have a more socialist government it’s prescense is more apparent people are directly effected by it and people are more likely to care what happens to it. IN the us it isn’t so people travel by car, not public transport. People use private insurance not national insurance. The list can go on. So yes it is also to do with the type of government not only the social reasons why people in england are more intrested. You want people to vote or to hold the government accountable the people’s intrest need to be more apparent than the "corporations" it all boils down to the fact that money and politics are mixed way to much in the USA. In regards to england politics. When I was talking about the british political system I was talking about a few things. First of all I was talking about how the prime minister is directly related to the parliment. So basically if he loses control of parliment majority his job is at risk. They have the "vote of non confidence" as well that can be used to get rid of government. In the USA the president isn’t directly tied to the congress. So we can have a majority republican congress and a democratic president. So the prime mininster is a bit less secure than a president.
May 8th, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
Yeah, I’ll agree that the government in the UK plays a more important role in peoples lives. While most of the rail system is privatized, and a large part of the population uses private health care, not NHS, most of the UK population still looks to the government to solve societies problems. In the US, these social systems have always been privatized, so people don’t look to the government as much to solve problems.
May 9th, 2006 @ 2:11 am
I met a 2 guys today that have been active in lobbying government. One served on an environmental council for a city government in Ohio, one lobbied Congress for a pharmecutical company. Both were parts of larger organizations that helped give them a stronger voice in government.Which reminds me, I’ve been participating in a neighborhood planning organization that has some power at least with our local government. The thing is, all of this stuff takes up precious time. When we have to work 8-10 hours a day, there are few of us that want to keep working after we get home. There are sports to play, TV to watch, dinner to prepare. When is there time for political activism? The internet has helped a lot. Going beyond the neighborhood planning council, I’ve written my representatives and senators at least 3 times in the past 2 months. I don’t have a working relationship with them, but I am working to have my voice heard. But I’m definitely in the minority. And I’m not even that active.
May 9th, 2006 @ 10:32 am
When I say "politically active" I mean keeping up with current events, voting, and talking about issues in every day conversations. I think becoming a lobbyists or even joining political or planning organisations is above and beyond what’s necessary for most (though New Orleans sounds like it needs as many proactive citizens as it can get). I think most of the folks reading this blog are politically active. So I’m preaching to the choir. My main concern is the 40-50% of the population that has their heads in the ground.
May 10th, 2006 @ 12:39 am
not that I don’t agree with the point that in the US the government doesn’t screw up anything too important (heirarchy of needs important), but the conclusion you draw ashraf is that privatization is the problem and socialization is a solution.
I think on the whole the privately held firms are more efficient at what they do than their government owned counterparts. Examples:
FedEx / UPS v USPS
Private Schools v Public Schools
Spaceship One v NASA’s STS
Private Investment in business v Government development of businesses (ie contract writing for instance)
Now, insurance is a good exception, I know that for instance in Canada and the UK much less of every dollar is wasted to red tape and paperwork than in the US….I think there’s some big scheme going on over here.
The huge mega companies over here got to where they are because they run tight ships, they deliver excellent goods and services—and to boot, their leaders are held more accountable than any politician here is. Private enterprize is inherently better suited to rise to challanges and compete.
Some exceptions, the military, transportation, organization of commerce rules, etc.
-Will A
May 10th, 2006 @ 4:01 am
I think 40-50% of us having our heads in the sand is giving us too much credit :)
May 10th, 2006 @ 2:38 pm
Actually Will I am all for privatization. Private corporations are by far more efficient than government ones. My basic thoughts are that when corporations become more power-full than populace there is an imbalance. Because no matter how benevolent a corporation may seem there goal is to make money off people. So in the end the only people who should be responsible for people are.. well people. OK that was a weird statement. But essentially when shell, Exxon, Procter and gamble, Boeing, and halburton are the ones setting the government policy on internal and external affairs I believe we as a people shouldn’t trust that they are doing what’s right for us.
May 10th, 2006 @ 2:46 pm
why doesn’t the USA have a good public transport system?The oil companies ran them into the ground look at the history of the trolley in the USA.Why is the USA the only first world country without national health care? Drug, medical, and insurance companies are lobbying very hard to block that.And essentially Trickle down economics is a failed economic model. How can we expect corporations to trickle down the wealth to the people?So what is the balance? I do not know I am not looking for some sort of socialist revolution. Trust me living in a socialist country for the past few months isn’t my ideal. But there needs to be some sort of corporate responsibility. A business in the end is only looking out for it’s assets not the welfare of the populace and it is silly to expect that they would. Look at the price gouging that happened in New Orleans during Katrina. This wasn’t a corporate decision obviously but it was a business one. When opportunity strikes a business will take advantage to make a buck.
May 10th, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
The main problem with privatisation is that sometimes, as in Ashraf’s examples, the companies’ profit gains outbalance the efficiency gained. So where a socialised system wastes money in bureaucracy and lack of innovation, a privatised system takes money away from the people in the form of greed and profit.
I think the US and the UK both have a pretty balanced system. Though the problems with both systems are what both countries are struggling with. Health care is the biggest example in both countries. In the UK all of the issues are with keeping the NHS running smoothly and getting everyone what they need without the country going broke. In the US all of the issues are how to stop the private insurance companies from robbing the country blind. If you look at the large industrial companies in the US, they’re all struggling to pay benefits which results in job cuts.
Another big difference between the health care in the US and in the UK is the likely hood of malpractice law suits in the US is much higher. That’s what the health insurance companies are blaming rising prices on, not profits.
May 11th, 2006 @ 11:59 pm
so how do we pry corporations away from the government that is supposed to look out for the poeple?
May 12th, 2006 @ 10:00 am
My understanding is that the best thing citizens can do to keep control over their rights is to set up class action law suits if the corporations are breaking the law. Price fixing is a common example. Worked against the record companies in the 90’s.
Of course the government is supposed to keep tabs as well, but they’re pretty poor at that.
July 14th, 2006 @ 4:14 pm
[...] I started a discussion earlier about the problem of apathy and the poor state of political participation in the US. I feel that a major cultural change would be the only way to reverse the problems in America’s political system. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, has started a new site called Campaigns Wikia which aims to make just this sort of cultural change. [...]