Which nations act as models for American conservative ideals?

[nameless]

So, in the grand health care debate, we progressives often point to countries such as Canada, the U.K., Switzerland, or Sweden to point out various roles for government involvement in the industry. But this is true more generally--we often look at foreign countries' policies with respect to immigration, gay rights, drug policy, education, etc. But I don't see a lot of this from more conservative analysts.

Which got me thinking--is this sort of analysis (with intent to emulate) of the domestic policies of other countries a unique activity of the Left? Do conservatives tend to stick to America ca. 1940-50 as their model nation? Do conservatives tend to be more theoretical in their policy prescriptions? Or are there countries that conservative Americans appreciate and seek to emulate? It's a joke on the left that Somalia is the ideal libertarian nation--but I don't think any of us really ascribe that view to conservatives seriously.

More broadly, does this have implications for "liberal" vs. "conservative" governance? Is this just a reflection of a desire for Internationalism on the liberal side and a belief in American Exceptionalism on the conservative side? Is the United States just the world's most conservative/libertarian nation? What say you, conservadopers? What have you heard from conservative friends, liberadopers?

[Martin Hyde]

The United States is essentially a major exception amongst world powers, in terms of its political history.

When socialism as a defined concept began, it started in Europe and that is where it really took hold in the late 19th/early 20th century. The concepts of social welfare were just simply far more popular in Europe than they are or have ever been in the United States.

Part of it is definitely the different way of thinking that American political history has created. The United States is essentially the only great power that grew up on the backbone of rejection of old European styles of governing. The early colonies were essentially founded and ran by entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs were the first people to push further and further west expanding the borders. Europe and Asia have been densely explored and settled since ancient times. The Americas were never as densely populated (even before the arrival of Europeans and their diseases.) Essentially America was founded on the concept of the individual man and on the back of entrepreneurs, no European countries were.

Since essentially as far back as detailed history of Europe goes powerful nobles essentially owned 100% of the land, slowly ceding some of it as time went on. Individual "commoners" were not the people who crafted states, it was alliances of nobles. Borders were not created by individuals because you couldn't really do that when all the land was taken up already by powerful, entrenched states. It's one thing for a trickle of pioneers to push west and with moderate-to-light backing from the U.S. military drive the natives out. In Europe major armies had to battle on the field in titanic wars to resolve conflicts over areas the size of Connecticut.

Essentially the political history of Europe was such that an American style birthing of a state was totally impossible. This lead to different ideals and different ways of thinking. I don't really believe in "American Exceptionalism", but I do believe America is distinct because of a combination of geographical and political realities. There's nothing essentially special about "Americans" other than their surroundings.

[Blalron]

So, in the grand health care debate, we progressives often point to countries such as Canada, the U.K., Switzerland, or Sweden to point out various roles for government involvement in the industry. But this is true more generally--we often look at foreign countries' policies with respect to immigration, gay rights, drug policy, education, etc. But I don't see a lot of this from more conservative analysts.

The grim truth is that there aren't any good models for laissez-faire capitalism. If there were, conservatives would gleefully point them out to us. Our past history doesn't have it either. Laissez-Faire brought us The Gilded Era, and deregulation had a huge hand in the recent Great Recession.

The 1950s are often pointed at as an ideal time, but one thing they neglect to mention the 91% top marginal tax rate! Today's conservatives throw a tantrum over letting the Bush tax cuts expire (with the top rate going from 35% to 39%). Glen Beck would probably burst a blood vessel if they brought it up to Reagan Era rates of 50%. So the 1950s economic policies are not going to be held up as an exemplar.

[Kimstu]

Conservatives in the economically-libertarian camp frequently point to Hong Kong as an economic model of free markets and limited government (http://blog.mises.org/archives/004988.asp), although not unanimously: for instance, this BusinessWeek article questions that assessment (http://www.businessweek.com/1998/37/b3595019.htm).

[Blalron]

I'll note for the record that Hong Kong, that shining beacon of economic liberty and propserity, has government funded Universal Healthcare.

[Revenant Threshold]

Essentially the political history of Europe was such that an American style birthing of a state was totally impossible. Doesn't America itself count as an American style birthing of a state due to European political history?

[chacoguy]

North Korea?

[Wesley Clark]

Economically, Hong Kong tends to come up. I have heard South Korea under Park Chung Hee as an example too, and the economic reforms of Deng in China (market liberalization) as examples. I don't know if the reforms in South Korea were free market reforms, or involved heavy government investment or not though. I think one of the reasons people use that example is North Korea is communist, south Korea is a capitalistic democracy and people like to use the dichotomy to talk about 'this is what happens when you pick communism over free markets'. However China and Vietnam are both communist and are experiencing massive economic growth. But I am pretty sure they are communist in name only, and don't really follow communist economics.

As far as social policies, they tend to compare them to a idealized past and talk about how social reforms will take us away from them. I sometimes hear conservatives use the banning of gay marriage in most every country on earth as a reason we should ban it here, but there usually aren't specifics (ie no countries are named individually).

However, the fact that there are no wealthy, developed functioning democracies that follow conservative economic (at least not idealized economic) policy should tell you something. All functioning democracies have universal health care, pensions for the elderly, high taxes, market regulations, etc.

There are no wealthy democracies that follow the agenda of US movement conservatives. Even our country won't follow them. If they could, movement conservatives would disband medicare, social security, unions and the minimum wage (among other things). But the public would never stand for it.

[Martin Hyde]

Doesn't America itself count as an American style birthing of a state due to European political history?

Well sure, the majority of the first generational immigrants throughout the first ~300 years of history (from first colonization til the early 1900s) were European by ancestry but the realities of the New World created a fundamentally different political history and outlook than what would be seen in Europe. Essentially you're just confirming what I've already said. There wasn't anything uniquely special about the Europeans who went over as colonists, but the extremely different nature of the region they moved to created a people with a very different political history and outlook than that of the millions more who stayed behind.

[Wesley Clark]

The United States is essentially a major exception amongst world powers, in terms of its political history.

When socialism as a defined concept began, it started in Europe and that is where it really took hold in the late 19th/early 20th century. The concepts of social welfare were just simply far more popular in Europe than they are or have ever been in the United States.

Part of it is definitely the different way of thinking that American political history has created. The United States is essentially the only great power that grew up on the backbone of rejection of old European styles of governing. The early colonies were essentially founded and ran by entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs were the first people to push further and further west expanding the borders. Europe and Asia have been densely explored and settled since ancient times. The Americas were never as densely populated (even before the arrival of Europeans and their diseases.) Essentially America was founded on the concept of the individual man and on the back of entrepreneurs, no European countries were.

Since essentially as far back as detailed history of Europe goes powerful nobles essentially owned 100% of the land, slowly ceding some of it as time went on. Individual "commoners" were not the people who crafted states, it was alliances of nobles. Borders were not created by individuals because you couldn't really do that when all the land was taken up already by powerful, entrenched states. It's one thing for a trickle of pioneers to push west and with moderate-to-light backing from the U.S. military drive the natives out. In Europe major armies had to battle on the field in titanic wars to resolve conflicts over areas the size of Connecticut.

Essentially the political history of Europe was such that an American style birthing of a state was totally impossible. This lead to different ideals and different ways of thinking. I don't really believe in "American Exceptionalism", but I do believe America is distinct because of a combination of geographical and political realities. There's nothing essentially special about "Americans" other than their surroundings.

What about nations like Canada, Australia or possibly New Zealand?

I have heard race relations are why the US has far fewer social programs. In the US any attempt to expand social programs is seen as benefiting 'those' people. Historically, 'those' have been poor black people but nowadays immigrants from Mexico are also added in as one of those groups. And it has been easy for wealthy business interests to convince voters that social programs would take money away from the 'hard working real citizens' and give it to the 'lazy fake citizens'. Hence our social programs aren't as good as Europe. However I don't know how true that is.

The US tried to implement nationwide universal healthcare in the 1940s, which would've made it the first (as far as I know) developed nation to do so. Britian did it in the late 40s, many other OECD nations did in the 70s. But southern politicians were worried that it would lead to integration of hospitals, and opposed it. That is what Krugman said at least.

The more black people in a state, the more right wing the state is.

http://blog.prospect.org/blog/ezraklein/Obama-Kerry-Race.jpg

So a culturally/ethnically homogeneous place like Vermont is closer to Europe than a place like Mississippi, where 40% of the population is black. I'm guessing if New England broke off and became its own nation, it would resemble a place like France or Sweden more than the US.

You also have to wonder if immigration to Europe of people with different races and ethnic cultures will cause native Europeans to do the same thing and start opposing social programs.

[Camus]

There wasn't anything uniquely special about the Europeans who went over as colonists, but the extremely different nature of the region they moved to created a people with a very different political history and outlook than that of the millions more who stayed behind.

More extremely different a nature than British North America? Or Australia?

Unfortunately, with legislative and executive power divided between Congress and the President, unlike a more streamlined parliamentary system, there seems a lot more room for deadlock and endless debate. Which was the intent, I suppose, but there's definitely a sacrifice also. The rest of the world moved on - we didn't.

[Argent Towers]

A different kind of conservative ideal, but: gun rights advocates will point to Switzerland as an example of a place with the highest gun ownership rate in the world and one of the lowest of violent crime. Sure, people will argue that Switzerland has less poverty and social tension than the US so it's not the same, and this is true, but even then that forces them to concede that it's not literally the actual guns themselves that are the problem.

[Boyo Jim]

Sparta.

[furt]

So, in the grand health care debate, we progressives often point to countries such as Canada, the U.K., Switzerland, or Sweden to point out various roles for government involvement in the industry. But this is true more generally--we often look at foreign countries' policies with respect to immigration, gay rights, drug policy, education, etc. But I don't see a lot of this from more conservative analysts.I see plenty of it. It's just that in many cases they find things that aren't working in other countries, and that they don't want here.

But not always. Many conservatives wish we could have France's energy system (nukes), as well as the freer markets of the Asian tigers. Certainly libertarians wish we could have the drug and prostition laws of some other counties.

They'd probably love to have immigration laws of most other countries -- ours are among the more lenient in many ways. And the educational systems in Asia are not ones that most Liberals would embrace.

More to the point, I don't see why "models" are important. I don't think anyone's speech laws are as free as ours; and yet I'd like ours much freer.

[Der Trihs]

I don't think anyone's speech laws are as free as ours; and yet I'd like ours much freer.Whether our laws are freer depends on whether you want to talk about or show sex, as opposed to violence. American standards for showing sex are quite prudish, but quite free when it comes to violence. Someplace like Germany is the opposite. It's not really a one dimensional line between "more free" <----> "less free".

[ruadh]

However, the fact that there are no wealthy, developed functioning democracies that follow conservative economic (at least not idealized economic) policy should tell you something. All functioning democracies have universal health care, pensions for the elderly, high taxes, market regulations, etc.

Ireland doesn't have universal health care, at least not at the primary care level. Unless you're over 70 or really poor you have to pay out of pocket for doctor visits, which average around $87 per visit, and have to pay full price for your medicine (at among the highest prices in Europe) unless the cost exceeds about $145 per month. Not surprisingly this has a dampening effect on people going to their doctor when they're less than really, really, really sick.

Ireland has more in the way of social welfare benefits than American conservatives would like but it's not much of a welfare state compared to continental Europe. Ideologically the leading parties are more free-market oriented than a lot of their European counterparts (the government's favourite cliché is "closer to Boston than Berlin"). Not coincidentally the Irish economy is well down the toilet at the moment, and expected to remain there for quite awhile.

American anti-abortion fanatics do see Ireland as a model because of the near-total prohibition here. There are very close links between Operation Rescue and Ireland's own homegrown nutters, Youth Defence.

They'd probably also like the education model, in which schools are run largely by churches, under direct control of local boards of management, with the state pretty much only setting a basic curriculum and providing some funding. Of course we've also seen recently how well that's worked (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/20/irish-catholic-schools-child-abuse-claims) for Irish children.

[Mops]

The Galactic Empire (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/248ipzbt.asp?pg=1)?

[Der Trihs]

The Galactic Empire (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/248ipzbt.asp?pg=1)?Well, to quote the Emperor :

Use your aggressive feelings, boy. Let the hate flow through you.

< snip >

Your hate has made you powerful. Now, fulfill your destiny and take your father's place at my side!

And to quote Randall Terry founder of Operation Rescue the antiabortion group :

I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.He DOES sound like at any moment he'll start calling his opponents "Jedi".

[JKellyMap]

I hear Chile being praised a lot -- ahead of the curve on dismantling tarriffs, privatizing utilities, and other concepts dear to the heart of mainstream conservatives. Plus, for more ultra-rightists, it has a good dose of student-and-intellectual-killing military dictatorship in its recent history, and is more "white" than your typical Latin American country.

[Guinastasia]

I hear Chile being praised a lot -- ahead of the curve on dismantling tarriffs, privatizing utilities, and other concepts dear to the heart of mainstream conservatives. Plus, for more ultra-rightists, it has a good dose of student-and-intellectual-killing military dictatorship in its recent history, and is more "white" than your typical Latin American country.


And guess who's responsible for that? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._intervention_in_Chile#1970_election)

[YogSosoth]

Iran, but with a different religion?

[Gam Zeh Yaavor]

Somalia.

No taxation, no restrictions on trade, no minimum wage.
No public services, no public healthcare. If you can't pull yourself up by the bootstraps, too bad so sad.
You can practice whatever your holy scriptures sanction or demand, no matter how violent, and nobody will interfere. Presuming that you have the strongest militia.
You can have all the guns and explosives you want.

Sounds like American right-wing heaven to me.

[Wesley Clark]

Ireland doesn't have universal health care, at least not at the primary care level. Unless you're over 70 or really poor you have to pay out of pocket for doctor visits, which average around $87 per visit, and have to pay full price for your medicine (at among the highest prices in Europe) unless the cost exceeds about $145 per month. Not surprisingly this has a dampening effect on people going to their doctor when they're less than really, really, really sick.

Ireland has more in the way of social welfare benefits than American conservatives would like but it's not much of a welfare state compared to continental Europe. Ideologically the leading parties are more free-market oriented than a lot of their European counterparts (the government's favourite cliché is "closer to Boston than Berlin"). Not coincidentally the Irish economy is well down the toilet at the moment, and expected to remain there for quite awhile.

American anti-abortion fanatics do see Ireland as a model because of the near-total prohibition here. There are very close links between Operation Rescue and Ireland's own homegrown nutters, Youth Defence.

They'd probably also like the education model, in which schools are run largely by churches, under direct control of local boards of management, with the state pretty much only setting a basic curriculum and providing some funding. Of course we've also seen recently how well that's worked (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/20/irish-catholic-schools-child-abuse-claims) for Irish children.

I don't know tons about it, but in Ireland supposedly 79% of all health care spending is done by the public sector.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

In the US it is closer to 50-60%. And a 79% spending rate by the public sector is close to the rate of Canada or the UK.

Plus in Ireland hospital charges are maxed out for consumers at €75 a day or €750 in a 12 month period. There is no max that you can be charged in the US for drugs or hospital visits.


Ireland has a far better health system than we have, and I would consider it UHC because it has so many cost controls to stop bankruptcy and ensure coverage for everyone (things we in the US don't have).

[Camus]

I hear Chile being praised a lot -- ahead of the curve on dismantling tarriffs, privatizing utilities, and other concepts dear to the heart of mainstream conservatives. Plus, for more ultra-rightists, it has a good dose of student-and-intellectual-killing military dictatorship in its recent history, and is more "white" than your typical Latin American country.

Except many of Chile's economic accomplishments were achieved or at least started during Pinochet's military dictatorship. It's easy (or at least a good deal easier) to make painful changes to economic and social policies when you don't have to worry about getting re-elected. I don't think they want Obama going down that route. Well, except they already seem to think we're there.

Oh, and no right-wing party has been in power in Chile since Pinochet reluctantly stepped down in 1990.

[Wesley Clark]

Pinochet is probably an honest assessment of the kind of leader the right wing is proud of and aspires to, at least today's right wing. He was a strong free market proponent, and he was also a military dictator who hated liberalism and communism. The sad reality is he is an example of what many of the tea party protesters are looking for. They want a fusion of free market economics with a strong disdain for liberalism and a strong presence of the military and police. Right wing authoritarians are not libertarians. Libertarians want a weak social safety net, but they also want a weak government and tons of personal freedoms. Right wing authoritarians (who have overtaken the conservative movement) want to disband social safety nets, but they also favor the oppression and purges of 'deviants, liberals, communists, radicals etc', which usually requires a strong military and police force. Libertarians are happy to live and let live, right wing authoritarians are not. The people who show up at town hall meetings with loaded guns and signs that imply we need to start assassinating political leaders are right wing authoritarians, not libertarians.

William F Buckley, considered a founder of modern movement conservatism, used to praise Francisco Franco.

http://www.slate.com/id/2185301/pagenum/2

General Franco is an authentic national hero. It is generally conceded that he above others had the combination of talents, the perseverance, and the sense of righteousness of his cause, that were required to wrest Spain from the hands of the visionaries, ideologues, Marxists and nihlistis that were imposing on her, in the thirties, a regime so grotesque as to do violence to the Spanish soul, to deny, even Spain's historical identity. - William F Buckley. 1957




So an honest assessment of the kind of leader that today's right wing can aspire to would probably be people like Pinochet or Franco.

[gonzomax]

Mussolini in Italy was the closest. He wanted Fascism which is government with huge control by corporations and the military. That is pretty much what the conservatives think is ideal. They want the news controlled by the few chosen ones too. Everyone else is identified as an enemy of the state.

[Wesley Clark]

Except many of Chile's economic accomplishments were achieved or at least started during Pinochet's military dictatorship. It's easy (or at least a good deal easier) to make painful changes to economic and social policies when you don't have to worry about getting re-elected. I don't think they want Obama going down that route. Well, except they already seem to think we're there.

Oh, and no right-wing party has been in power in Chile since Pinochet reluctantly stepped down in 1990.

I have heard several conservatives I know call for a military coup to 'save' the country from the perceived radicalism of Obama.

Glenn Beck and Michael Scheuer were on TV not long ago saying that the only hope of America being saved if is Bin Laden attacks us again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/01/glenn-beck-guest-fantasiz_n_223807.html

It may not be PC to say it, but the kind of leader who has existed overseas that the contemporary right probably wants to come to power here would probably be a military dictator who came to power during times of turmoil and leftism and who started purges in pursuit of moving the country to the right. Franco, Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, the overthrow of Ibarra in Equador, etc.

I have heard more than one right winger speak enviously about a military coup in the US. In fact I saw a letter to the editor in a local paper about someone fantasizing about a grassroots military coup against Obama. No idea why a respectable paper would publish something like that.

And you have leaders of the conservative movement calling for Bin Laden to attack us again in the hopes that another attack will make people reject liberalism.

[Revenant Threshold]

Well sure, the majority of the first generational immigrants throughout the first ~300 years of history (from first colonization til the early 1900s) were European by ancestry but the realities of the New World created a fundamentally different political history and outlook than what would be seen in Europe. Essentially you're just confirming what I've already said. There wasn't anything uniquely special about the Europeans who went over as colonists, but the extremely different nature of the region they moved to created a people with a very different political history and outlook than that of the millions more who stayed behind. Different, yes, but still a result of. The realities of life over there certainly had a strong effect in shaping American character and so on, but they didn't simply leave everything behind; they took their baggage with them.

I think we might be in agreement; i'm not denying there were influences at work different than those of your average joes back in the Old World. My point is that they were at work as well, rather than instead of. That American political history, even up until today, could well be described as a result of that European political history - an unusual, relatively unique result, but still a result.

[Dick Dastardly]

Pinochet is probably an honest assessment of the kind of leader the right wing is proud of and aspires to, at least today's right wing. He was a strong free market proponent, and he was also a military dictator who hated liberalism and communism. The sad reality is he is an example of what many of the tea party protesters are looking for. They want a fusion of free market economics with a strong disdain for liberalism and a strong presence of the military and police. Right wing authoritarians are not libertarians. Libertarians want a weak social safety net, but they also want a weak government and tons of personal freedoms. Right wing authoritarians (who have overtaken the conservative movement) want to disband social safety nets, but they also favor the oppression and purges of 'deviants, liberals, communists, radicals etc', which usually requires a strong military and police force. Libertarians are happy to live and let live, right wing authoritarians are not. The people who show up at town hall meetings with loaded guns and signs that imply we need to start assassinating political leaders are right wing authoritarians, not libertarians.

William F Buckley, considered a founder of modern movement conservatism, used to praise Francisco Franco.

http://www.slate.com/id/2185301/pagenum/2

General Franco is an authentic national hero. It is generally conceded that he above others had the combination of talents, the perseverance, and the sense of righteousness of his cause, that were required to wrest Spain from the hands of the visionaries, ideologues, Marxists and nihlistis that were imposing on her, in the thirties, a regime so grotesque as to do violence to the Spanish soul, to deny, even Spain's historical identity. - William F Buckley. 1957




So an honest assessment of the kind of leader that today's right wing can aspire to would probably be people like Pinochet or Franco.

I thought mass graves were bad. Saddam's mass graves were a bad thing. But Franco's and Pinochet's must be acceptable. Where's the moral clarity?

[msmith537]

The correct answer is:

AMERICA!

[Der Trihs]

The correct answer is:

AMERICA!In other words, the OP's comments on ( compared to Democrats ) conservatives proposals being based more on political theory as opposed to facts, and that they believe in American Exceptionalism are correct. It certainly helps explain why conservatives ruin everything they touch.

[JRDelirious]

Well, yes -- the "model" for the more ideological American conservatives, as far as I can determine, is an idealized vision of some sort of Arcadian "America As The Founding Fathers Would Have Had It If It Weren't For Those Pesky Libs". More practical conservatives would tell you "well, the thing is you can't really translate what works in ________ to what will work in America, every country is unique and different, we need a solution that's uniquely fit for us", which is more sensible.

[msmith537]

In other words, the OP's comments on ( compared to Democrats ) conservatives proposals being based more on political theory as opposed to facts, and that they believe in American Exceptionalism are correct. It certainly helps explain why conservatives ruin everything they touch.

Well, more or less yes. The Conservatives you speak of ruin everything they touch because they believe that all things American are best because they are American, not because they are best. The Liberals ruin stuff in different ways.

Some traditional conservative values are good - hard work, family, duty to country and community, fiscal common sense. But unfortunately, these values have been corrupted by a Right Wing agenda of religeous fanatacism, xenophobia and anti-intellectualism. It is an agenda designed to play on the fears of hard-working white, middle and working class rural and suburban God-fering traditional Americans that their way of life is going to be destroyed by the growing number of Americans who don't fit into that traditional demographic profile. In reality the greater threat is to not adapt as a nation to the changing global landscape.

[ruadh]

Plus in Ireland hospital charges are maxed out for consumers at €75 a day or €750 in a 12 month period.

As I said, I was speaking about primary care. Not hospital care.

Ireland has a far better health system than we have

All that says is how bad the US system is. The Irish system is far worse than other European ones.

and I would consider it UHC because it has so many cost controls to stop bankruptcy and ensure coverage for everyone (things we in the US don't have).

But it doesn't ensure coverage for everyone. There isn't coverage for everyone for primary care, which is an absolutely essential element of a universal health care system.

And whatever about you considering it "UHC", I don't know anyone here who does. See this (http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0427/finegael.html) recent(ish) news item for example.

[Wesley Clark]

Yeah but how much does primary care cost? In the US I can get a doctor's visit (or a visit with a PA or NP) for $20-60. The Irish system covers prescription medications and hospital visits, which are areas where the real money goes.

As far as what you consider UHC, it is a personal standard. In the UK, dental is covered by the UHC system. In Canada it is not. However I don't know of anyone who says that Canada lacks a UHC system because it does not cover dental. I think Taiwan's UHC system covers alternative treatments (acupuncture, etc) whereas other nations do not cover things like that.

The Irish system covers hospitals and prescription drugs, and I doubt anyone there goes bankrupt or loses a home or retirement savings because they get sick. And I doubt victims of domestic violence or car accidents are denied health care because of pre existing conditions). That is a pretty good system (by US standards), even if it is the most stingy system in Europe.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

The United States of America pre-1965 and Hippie Revolution.

[Thudlow Boink]

The correct answer is:

AMERICA!Yep. I think that, in many American conservatives' minds, the difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives want to keep America America, while liberals want to turn it into, oh I dunno, France or Sweden or something, if not communist Russia.

So if you're modeling your vision for America on some other country, Why Do You Hate America?

[Cornelius Tuggerson]

Whether our laws are freer depends on whether you want to talk about or show sex, as opposed to violence. American standards for showing sex are quite prudish, but quite free when it comes to violence. Someplace like Germany is the opposite. It's not really a one dimensional line between "more free" <----> "less free".

Cite? Specifically what kind of pornography are you allowed to posses in Germany that you are not allowed to posses in the US? Same question wrt privately showing it.

[ruadh]

Yeah but how much does primary care cost?

I already answered that. Each visit to your GP costs an average of $87. (That's an average based on what GPs charge. Some charge less, but none charge a lot less. And some charge more.) You will have to pay on top of that for tests. And prescription medicine is only covered once it exceeds $145 per month. There is plenty of evidence, both anecdotal (http://www.independent.ie/health/latest-news/cost-of-gp-visits-putting-patients-off-seeking-care-1874331.html) and from research (http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=9502), that the consequence of this is that many people do not go their doctor when they are sick. If you are on a low income, but not low enough to qualify for our equivalent of Medicaid, you simply cannot afford $87 per visit plus whatever for tests plus up to $145 for your medicines a month. This is a major, major problem in Irish society.

As far as what you consider UHC, it is a personal standard. In the UK, dental is covered by the UHC system. In Canada it is not. However I don't know of anyone who says that Canada lacks a UHC system because it does not cover dental. I think Taiwan's UHC system covers alternative treatments (acupuncture, etc) whereas other nations do not cover things like that.

I don't think that's a fair comparison. Those are specialty areas of health care - but primary care is the gateway to the whole health care system. And I doubt whether people in Canada and Taiwan would consider their systems universal if they lacked universal primary access. I doubt whether Obama would be considered to have brought in a universal health care system if he brought in a system where access to basic primary care still depended on whether or not you could afford health insurance. Do you really believe that he would?


The Irish system covers hospitals and prescription drugs, and I doubt anyone there goes bankrupt or loses a home or retirement savings because they get sick. And I doubt victims of domestic violence or car accidents are denied health care because of pre existing conditions). That is a pretty good system (by US standards), even if it is the most stingy system in Europe.

Ireland is less awful in those respects than the US, certainly. But people do still die because of the lack of access to universal health care. They die because of a system that prioritises private patients and pushes those without health insurance to the back of the queue, even for those aspects that are "universal" (see the case of Susie Long (http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2007/10/18/story45570.asp)). It is a shitty, nasty, totally inadequate system and praising it just because it isn't quite as shitty, nasty and totally inadequate as the US system is a bit like saying the system in Michigan is great because it's not as bad as the system in Utah or whatever [substitute states as appropriate, I don't actually know anything about the systems in Michigan and Utah]. Seriously, come over here and tell the people suffering under it - and I encounter plenty of them in my work - that they should be thankful for the great "universal" health care system we have.

I realise that it's politically expedient for advocates of universal health care in the US to claim that every other advanced nation has one, but that's simply not the reality on the ground here.