By Rory Kulz
Harris Interactive conducted a poll about attitudes towards health care in each of 7 countries:
Now what can we take away from this data? Well, I think there are two things.
First of all, somewhere around 70-80% of respondents in each country are dissatisfied in some way with their health care system (I am referring to the individuals who did not say "only minor changes needed" as the dissatisfied group); we in the U.S. have the most dissatisfied (and the only country going over 80%) at 82%. The sole exception to this is the Dutch, who typically rate their system highly and of whom only 58% are dissatisfied in some way. Some believe the Dutch system might actually be a good model for U.S. reform, since it maintains private insurance and some coverage through employers while (a.) keeping payments low for consumers by emphasizing transparent costs and (b.) subsidizing care across the board and managing risk pools so that the elderly, the sick, etc. are able to receive the coverage they need while insurers are protected against risk. While all people in the Netherlands are required to be insured, much like Clinton advocated in the primaries, long-term treatments/hospitalizations and disability costs such as wheelchairs are fully covered by the state, and costs are mostly low for the individual Dutch consumer.
Second of all, when we look at the dissatisfied individuals in each country, most want some change but do not want to throw their system out completely. Less than a quarter among the dissatisfied respondents in most of the countries want to throw their system out, with the least going to The Netherlands (16% = 9/58) and Canada (17% = 12/72). The UK, New Zealand, and Austria come in next with 21% (15/72), 23% (17/73), and 25% (18/73) respectively. What do all of these countries have in common? Easy: strongly nationalized health care. Many are by now familiar with the universal systems in the UK and Canada. In New Zealand, the costs are few, just visits primarily to your family doctor or general practitioner, and costs even for this for the poor are picked up partially by the state. Accidents and necessary specialized care are picked up entirely by the government. Austria also has universal health care, including dental treatment.
This leaves Germany and the United States in a different category altogether. Of dissatisfied respondents, 35% (27/78) of Germans and a whopping 41% (34/82) of Americans state that they want to see radical, throw-that-baby-and-the-bathwater-way-out change. So what's the takeaway here? As Ezra Klein noted in his post on this poll, Germany is the least state-run health care next to the United States. It has a dual public-private system, and there is no cost-free care to patients without insurance, not even in state-run hospitals. I submit that perhaps the primary cause of dissatisfaction among Germans might be the growing fear that the wealthy are to receive a higher standard of health care due to their ability to buy into private plans and increasing growth in that sector.
Food for thought. At the very least though, I think, regardless of what one thinks about socialized health care, this shoots down any arguments about people in countries with socialized medicine being immensely more dissatisfied than us due to "wait times", "being unable to get an operation", etc. which are typically exaggerated and even more typically just a proxy for "life under socialism (gasp!)". In fact, the opposite is true: we are the ones who are sick of how we treat our sick.
Rory Kulz is a senior at Harvard College pursuing a degree in computer science and mathematics. When he's not solving the U.S. health care crisis, he clogs at Horrible Excursions into Medialand.
By Phil Eastman
[Ed. note: This guest post was submitted in response to the Nov. 17 - 23, 2008 prompt of the week.]
The past two weeks in California have been rife with mixed emotions, misdirected anger, and a fervent vilification of the Mormon Church. Gays are angry. Families are angry. Non-homosexuals are angry. Is it really possible that California--what is thought to be one of the most liberal states in the country--voted to deprive a minority group of its basic civil right to marry?
You're damn right.
California citizens are finally waking up to the fact that it they are not immune to the religious fervor supposedly relegated to residents of the Midwest, as well as the political decisions that are swayed by "the word of God." Yup, California's got Deliverance-style yokels just like the rest of 'em. It's been well-publicized that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints contributed more than $22 million toward Prop 8. support funding, including robo-calls to inner-city neighborhoods claiming Obama's support for Prop. 8 (lie), as well as prime-time smear ads that claimed Prop. 8 would prevent elementary school children from being forced to learn about gay marriage in school (Gasp!). To many citizens it seems, the act of homosexuality is a "choice," a lifestyle embedded in sin, and one that--despite most major religions preaching compassion as a universal truth--deserves punishment.
I've taken part in numerous protests in the past few weeks, and though I've long held the notion that public demonstration is an antiquated means to social and political progression, the spectacle alone seems to be creating a dialogue absent in the final days before the election. Perhaps many of our liberal hope were consolidated so deeply in the Obama camp that gay rights were overlooked in California, but at least now people are creating a dialogue through candle lit vigils, online petitions and gatherings of voices.
"My parents voted for Prop. 8, knowing that I am gay," a co-worker told me recently. "I don't know if I can forgive them for that. But every time I march, every time I go out there and hold out my sign, I just have to tell myself that what I am doing is going to be get people talking, and thinking more deeply about this this vote affects the lives of so many in a negative way."
Some of my colleagues scoff at the marchers as doing too little too late, one can't deny that day after day, week after week, they just keep marching. And I hope that they never cease, that the noise becomes deafening to the ears of churchgoers deceived by the notion that a God beckons them to deprive others of love, to deny others of the right to create a family, and to project hate upon their fellow beings. One mind changed is one step forward toward equal rights for all.
"My religion is simple. My religion is kindness." — Dalai Lama
By Josh Lustig
[Ed. note: This guest post was submitted in response to the Nov. 10 - 16, 2008 prompt of the week.]
More important might be the question: Did the term ever have a strict easy-to-understand definition? If the answer is yes, then let’s all be thankful for its newly appointed champion, President-elect Barack Obama.
If the answer is no, then Lord help us.
Fact is, progressivism is as devoid of meaning as any political persuasion. It was born of necessity and recently co-opted of sheer entitlement by countless different special interests. When the Republican public relations machine turned "liberal" into a dirty word, we fought fire with fire – a sort of political "rebranding." No group save the radical fringes would argue against progress, right?
Turns out it depends on how you define it.
The unfortunate part for the 60-some odd-million who turned out for the Democrats this year? All of them disagree on the definition. As vague as the concept of an "American Dream" or the framers' constitutional intent, this thing called progress can't be defined by an election.
This is the same reason why the Republican Party failed -- it became a party that stood for so many different conflicting ideas that when it came to actual governing, it stood for nothing. Fiscal conservatives looked on with horror as gay marriage was demonized in their name. Conversely, the Bible-thumpers truly abhorred the idea of anyone’s paws in their social security fund. And thus, the party crumbled.
The two-party system is a blessing in terms of viable electability, but it’s a goddamn nightmare when you have to prioritize the millions of people with different ideas who got you into office in the first place. Immigration or economic justice? Health care or jump-starting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process? The Democrats will pick at their own peril -- those causes left unchampioned will not disappear quietly.
Things will undoubtedly become clearer for "progressives" as interest groups of all persuasions brutally claw at one another for prominence on the post-inauguration Judgment Day of January 21. Just from my own casual glancing across the ‘Net, several massive groups are already planning to raid our nation’s capital, demanding their slice of change pie. Many are great causes, but in a slow government with severely limited resources, there will be losers.
The simple fact is encouraging increased participation in government never works in any one direction. While it's undeniable that most Americans believe our nation is on the wrong track, labeling all of the "change" contingency under the banner of progressivism will not be pretty -- eventually these people will disagree.
A word like progressivism will never be a substitute for good ideas. Starry-eyed idealists across America should embrace it... cautiously.
Josh Lustig was born, raised, and educated in the Washington D.C. metro area. He is slowly recovering from a 13-hour workday recruiting geriatrics to recite Democratic talking points in order to get a senator elected. Addicted to politics and travel, his life plan involves sleeping, writing, and exploring everything west of the Mississippi.
Welcome! If you got this far, it's probably because you're as excited by the prospect of the Whyroots project as we are.
The Guest Contributors page is set to be a place to showcase content by others outside our core group of ten. While we are not a group of yes-men (and women!)—as our varied contributions will soon make clear—we want and value the diversity of others' opinions on the site.
There are no real guidelines to the kinds of writing and other forms of content we want from our guest contributors. If the subject concerns some kind of relevant cultural or policy issue, and is interesting and smart—we want it. Yes, it can be satire; yes, it can be a photographic essay; yes, it can be a video. No, there are no limits—of any kind.
Send a pitch or perhaps even your developed draft to us by using the contact form. We will respond, no matter what. And take note: There is no limit to how many times you can submit or are published, just as there is no limit to the process of ideation.
RSS Feed