Real Changes in US Healthcare (Euro members please share your opinions)

[DaveP]

That's right Doug,

What they go for is something called white cider.  The drink companies think as long as they put a label on their products saying "drink responsibly" they are off the hook.  From their point of view they want to increase sales, the last thing they want is for the young to ease up.  Its like a replay of the tobacco/smoking issue.

This has gone way off topic and come full circle back to health.

I am thinking of going to the Doc to ask if he has anything for "Grumpy old Man syndrome" at least it won't cost me anything!

best
DaveP

 

[emrr]

I am thinking of going to the Doc to ask if he has anything for "Grumpy old Man syndrome" at least it won't cost me anything!

sign me up!

 

[JohnRoberts]

I wish I had your faith in government as a benign master, but I worry that they are just grabbing power to control another 15-20% of the formerly private economy. 

My faith lies in well-written laws and regulations. Government is the representation of the population, not some seperate entity. This is a nice spin the US right wing has invented.

I'm right here you know...  Call this spin if it helps your case...

I have written before about regulatory and legislative excess. The healthcare legislation was not a thoughtful balanced result of a partnership between all of our representatives, but rhamed through by the party in power, ignoring good suggestions from the then minority party. No doubt a significant reason why they are no longer the minority in the house.

For the Nth time, nobody wants the status quo, and this isn't going away, just the unconstitutional aspects of it. The really hard work is going to be making this work. There are already massive changes going on in the healthcare industry in anticipation of this going into effect.

-----
Speaking of legislative and regulatory excess, I just read a piece yesterday saying some 700k people have been charged with federal crimes in the last ten years, thanks to new laws. While the majority of these are drug related (another whole discussion), one example from yesterdays article was a 60 YO building janitor who got arrested and earned a criminal record for diverting a building sewer over flow into another drain pipe, that wasn't properly processed. It's difficult to not support laws like the clean water act, but not to make federal criminals out of janitors who make one honest mistake.

I've never heard it said here. People may complain about politicians, but government is just the organisation working for everyone. Our government did a remarkable job keeping unemployment low despite the economic crisis, by quickly implimenting lot's of small, smart tweaks.

We have had this conversation before, and yes Germany has an effective industrial policy and a long track record of paternalistic governance, but the driving force for your low unemployment is exports, fueled by the relatively cheap EURO made cheap by the lax budget discipline in several member nations. If the Euro common currency were to break up, and the DM restored as a German only currency, your international price advantage would evaporate, and you might share in the international malaise your neighbors see.

Interesting tidbit about the Euro zone sovereign debt crisis, it appears that many of euro zones banks purchased debt default protection instruments against that debt, but a certain amount of these derivatives were sold by other Euro zone banks, so it's kind of like insuring yourself, more a house of cards than real protection. I sure hope they figure out how to capitalize the banks before the fit hits the shan. We've been pumping capital into our banks since 2008 using low interbank rates, and after a few years they are still a little dicey because of the housing mortgage overhang.

I think the real fear of the American conservative in regards to single payer health care is that it might actually work. The one thing conservatives can't live with is having their world view shattered...

Nice... if you don't have a credible argument, attack the person. I continue to be amazed at everybody so certain about what I think and don't know. 

Single payer is effectively the problem with the current system. Changing that to the single payer being the government instead of a private company begs the question, is the post office or UPS/FEDEX/etc better at making deliveries? Just because the government is non-profit, does not mean they will be cheaper or more efficient. There is already huge waste and fraud in the segments of healthcare that are socialized (medicare etc), and the government's concept to cut cost by just dropping payments, only hurts the honest service providers, until they drop out of the system..

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

I have tried to be clear and concise about my concerns.

John, you have been very clear about these.  You don't think Obama's government can run an efficient expanded Public Health Service, reduce total costs to the nation and ensure a fair deal for everyone.

But what alternatives are your proposing?

I have posted a number of suggestions over this running discussion

Since I am too lazy to repeat them all, here is an editorial from a food market chain chairman that contains several good ideas.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html
I thought you might like the Thatcher quote (coincidence) since you are apparently a fan. 

Are you saying the Republicans have an agenda which will reduce the cost of public health to that of the UK, Scandinavia, Thailand or Cuba?

Not much chance of it ever being cheap, we already pay far more than other nations. It just needs to be a good value for money spent.

Because as sure as death & taxes, "business as usual" won't do it.

And for the nth time, I am not defending business as usual... However I am apprehensive about, " Trust us, we're from the government and here to help you... "

If you look at the history of the canadian system some people like (not all). It started out as a local or regional system that was later applied across the full nation. We are still at the experimental stage in some states (like MA). IMO we are premature to believe we have a solid plan and know how to do this from the top down.

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

I am thinking of going to the Doc to ask if he has anything for "Grumpy old Man syndrome" at least it won't cost me anything!

sign me up!

My grumpy old man medicine is in the ice box, but it's too early in the day to start drinking... I have real work I should be doing, instead of repeating myself here. 

JR

 

[lassoharp]

The american system implements an interesting form of slavery too; slavery to one's place in economic life in permanent form, once one becomes ill and needs public assistance beyond what one can afford.

Yes, that is about the size of it.  Would like to also add that even for the moderately well doing middle class with company or private insurance it amounts to the same thing IMO.  Skyrocketing deductibles and one sided qualifiers . . it's a rigged game.  In the mid 90's I had a minimum wage paying corporate job and the benefits I had were relatively good - at least they looked that way on paper.  I only ever used the dental.  The deductibles were reasonable compared to the figures I hear on a regular basis from people I know who are currently on insurance.  Roughly, maybe a $500 deductible is now $5000!  And beyond what may look good on paper is the reality of what happens after the doctors' or emergency room visit - when the bill shows up.  You thought something was covered and it wasn't . . . do you factor in your personal time it takes to try and 'straighten things out'?  or just let it slide and pay out of pocket?

It's very encouraging to see the current trend of physicians who have eschewed the insurance system in favor of arranging their own payment system = greater accountability for what they do = less temptations to engage in 'unnecessary' testing, procedures etc = hopefully more efficiency.  They will be forced to price services in the range of what people can afford.  Way it should be no?

 

[living sounds]

I'm right here you know...  Call this spin if it helps your case...

Yes, but its a decade-old narrative invented long ago, you're not telling me you had something to do with that? From what I know it was thought-up by the people who hated the new deal policies that introduced a golden age for huge swaths of the population, while somewhat shrinking the share of the small class of super-rich.

Speaking of legislative and regulatory excess, I just read a piece yesterday saying some 700k people have been charged with federal crimes in the last ten years, thanks to new laws. While the majority of these are drug related (another whole discussion), one example from yesterdays article was a 60 YO building janitor who got arrested and earned a criminal record for diverting a building sewer over flow into another drain pipe, that wasn't properly processed. It's difficult to not support laws like the clean water act, but not to make federal criminals out of janitors who make one honest mistake.

I agree. I think the whole political and judicial system needs an overhaul. From my point of view it is incredibly unsystematic and convoluted and cluttered with ancient baggage and riddled with distortions. A recent survey showed that even presidential pardons are granted in accordance with campaign contributions and ultimately favour white people over minorities by a rate of 4:1.
But at the same time I don't see a path in the foreseeable future that would lead to actual change, it's gridlocked really nicely.

Have you read this news story?
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/illinois-teens-account-racks-200-bank-fees/story?id=15137775

And still Republicans are blocking the consumer protection agency from working, even though all the laws for it are in place and Democrats have the majority for it in the Senate. It's an outrage.


As for the Euro crisis, I think we're in a nice mess of our own, and it might explode in our faces spectacularly. It's another case of bad laws and regulations.

Nice... if you don't have a credible argument, attack the person. I continue to be amazed at everybody so certain about what I think and don't know. 

This was meant as more of a general statement, I don't see you as the representative of a stereotypical conservative. Personal attacks lead nowhere (BTW, I've been attacked personally before in this forum, it's OK).

 

[JohnRoberts]

Many physicians have chosen to retire instead of deal with this, and some of the cut backs have affected the pool of new doctors coming up.

I am not a big fan of DRs steering patient care to medical facilities they also hold part ownership in, a little self dealing there that does not allow for competition. 

I remain hopeful that we can finally effectively apply expert systems to medical care delivery, so each DR is no longer limited to his one man's personal experience, but the experience of every doctor in the system can be pooled to more effectively use and apply that collective knowledge. DRs are only human, but we have better tools now to organize and apply the huge body of data collected across millions of patients. This standardization and computerization of health care records is a huge task.

Many hospitals have already enacted internal systemic controls that reduce cost and improve care, there is potential for more of this that we should realize in the coming years no matter who's hand is on the levers of power (I hope). 

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

I'm right here you know...  Call this spin if it helps your case...

Yes, but its a decade-old narrative invented long ago, you're not telling me you had something to do with that? From what I know it was thought-up by the people who hated the new deal policies that introduced a golden age for huge swaths of the population, while somewhat shrinking the share of the small class of super-rich.

I come to my own opinions from 6+ decades of paying attention. If they are coincidentally the same as others, that's their problem not mine. I have tried to read a lot of old classics and appreciate the wisdom that I have found in great thinkers.

Speaking of legislative and regulatory excess, I just read a piece yesterday saying some 700k people have been charged with federal crimes in the last ten years, thanks to new laws. While the majority of these are drug related (another whole discussion), one example from yesterdays article was a 60 YO building janitor who got arrested and earned a criminal record for diverting a building sewer over flow into another drain pipe, that wasn't properly processed. It's difficult to not support laws like the clean water act, but not to make federal criminals out of janitors who make one honest mistake.

I agree. I think the whole political and judicial system needs an overhaul. From my point of view it is incredibly unsystematic and convoluted and cluttered with ancient baggage and riddled with distortions. A recent survey showed that even presidential pardons are granted in accordance with campaign contributions and ultimately favour white people over minorities by a rate of 4:1.
But at the same time I don't see a path in the foreseeable future that would lead to actual change, it's gridlocked really nicely.

We have some grass roots push back against politics as usual, but this will take multiple election cycles to really have an effect on the ingrained bureaucracy. It takes more than one or two flushes to get all stink out.

Have you read this news story?
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/illinois-teens-account-racks-200-bank-fees/story?id=15137775

no i don't follow the main stream news

And still Republicans are blocking the consumer protection agency from working, even though all the laws for it are in place and Democrats have the majority for it in the Senate. It's an outrage.

banks are already highly regulated. Dodd/Frank has imposed restrictions on fees that has caused many banks to scramble for alternate sources of revenue.

If a bank delivers lousy value for what they cost, get another bank. The regulatory oversight should be to protect depositors against losses. This consumer protection thrust is all based on a "the consumer is too stupid to make their own decisions" theme, and nanny government is needed to protect them from evil businessmen.

If banks or any business break laws, put them in jail. We don't need more regulation into what should be private business. While there is fair argument that banking could be a socialized infrastructure. I just don't trust the government to do that after seeing the mess they made of fannie and freddie, that they managed to completely ignore in Dodd-Frank. Further the government in the guise of helping, has taken several too-big -to fail institutions and turned them into fewer even bigger, not the right direction IMO. These fewer mega banks reduce the kind of competition needed to serve as a natural remedy for bad customer service, like high bank fees. In a competitive marketplace such customer abuse does not remain secret very long, and the customer vote by moving their accts.  It the government want's to do something useful, break up the mega banks into smaller only very large banks, so consumers will have more choice.

As for the Euro crisis, I think we're in a nice mess of our own, and it might explode in our faces spectacularly. It's another case of bad laws and regulations.

Nice... if you don't have a credible argument, attack the person. I continue to be amazed at everybody so certain about what I think and don't know. 

This was meant as more of a general statement, I don't see you as the representative of a stereotypical conservative. Personal attacks lead nowhere (BTW, I've been attacked personally before in this forum, it's OK).

I know, but I find it a little hard to not take all these vague ad hominums a little personally since there aren't many people posting similar viewpoints to mine in this thread. We should be able to exchange ideas without the attacks. Such attacks on people not ideas, is why so much similar discussion around the WWW degenerates into name calling and heat rather than light. It would have been more fun for me to reply in kind with some Limey jokes earlier, but that would have been corrosive to a friendly discussion. If we do our best to talk about facts and things, we can create our own expert system here.

JR

 

[lassoharp]

I am not a big fan of DRs steering patient care to medical facilities they also hold part ownership in, a little self dealing there that does not allow for competition. 

So that would be veering back toward some type of regulation no?  I agree that physicians who own their own facilities are subject to abuses from self interest but as I stated earlier they will also have to be more accountable and efficient in their practice.  I'm referring to doctors who are choosing to run a 'cash only' non insurance based practice.  I don't see how this would defeat competition when there are increasing numbers of physician groups adopting this practice.  On the contrary, I see it forcing  streamlined competitive pricing based on what their clients pockets will support.  And sure, some will cater to the more affluent and some will handle the common folk and prices will probably reflect that.  At the heart of this is a growing number of physicians who care more about quality health care than profiteering and they are getting fed up with insurance companies and seeing people go broke from medical bills.  How this new approach will fare in the early days in the face of our existing system is a good question.  As with anything, caveat emptor.

 

[living sounds]

This consumer protection thrust is all based on a "the consumer is too stupid to make their own decisions" theme, and nanny government is needed to protect them from evil businessmen.

Well, most people have neither the time nor the intellect let alone the motivation to do in-debth comparisons of hundreds of competitors in all the various fields of modern life. Especially so in the Anglo-American legal system where everything has to be written into a contract (as opposed to a preformulated abstract civil law like in Germany or France). The mother getting a bank account for her son in the article I linked to had no idea. And the fact that the bank is allowed to change the contract on their own, perfectly exploiting their superior positition... I can't see how any decent person could agree with something like this.

We have similar problems now and again with for example phone companies. The EU cracks down on them (although lobbiests have too much power her, too, of course) and the rules get changed and that's that. I want a strong government to stand between me and special interests in a world of global corporations to balance out the asymmetry.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I very much favor the DRs dealing directly with the patients regarding cost/fee/payment.  This is pure market economics. I have (so far) a local clinic that I can pay out of pocket for basic services, while I have even ordered simple blood panels over the internet (a local office draws the blood), with a DR somewhere on the other end of a long distance telephone who discusses the blood work results with me, to keep it legal. The general maintenance aspect of healthcare is not rocket science. More like auto mechanics on a car that fixes itself most of the time.

If the DR can deliver a cheaper solution by owning his own MRI machine, then go for it, as long as the customer is in the decision making loop to use it, or a different one if cheaper. 

I worry that what we've seen with medicare is a precursor for what to expect in the mainstream. Less not more independent DR practices. The individuals will end up getting absorbed into to large organizations for better or worse.

For a tidbit about DR motivation, I just read an article about current practices in MA, and the case study reported on was of a doctor who was spiffed (received incentive payments) from his insurance company handlers for reducing expenditures. It's often about the Benjamins when trying to understand human behavior, we need more of this not less, with the patients also sharing some pecuniary skin in these decisions.  As it stands in the MA example, the DR is rewarded for denying the patient some test (s)he asks for but the DR doesn't feel is really needed. In an ideal world the patient gets to decide to spend his own money or not on that test, so we are still far from pure market economics, with only one side aware of the economic consequence of decisions.

JR

 

[Kingston]

If a bank delivers lousy value for what they cost, get another bank. The regulatory oversight should be to protect depositors against losses. This consumer protection thrust is all based on a "the consumer is too stupid to make their own decisions" theme, and nanny government is needed to protect them from evil businessmen.

But that's just it. You're naive thinking businessmen aren't inherently evil. I'll rephrase: only interested in making money to the owners of the company. By any means necessary.

With relaxed regulation you're ensuring the consumer sheep will be exploited.

You seem to fail to take in account the human nature. I agree with living sounds that we do need legislation and regulation to protect us from ourselves. People are extremely stupid and will happily jump off a cliff not even knowing it in many walks of life. So why not a fence here and there to at least disallow the exploitation of this for financial gain?

In reality there's no such thing as moral, not built into any of us. Your healthcare system married to nearly unlimited insurance company power never fails to prove this whenever given a choice of making more money vs. someone's early death and miserable shutdown. That same rule applies to all business who pass their own regulation. Cheap lead paint is put on childrens toys whenever a company can get away with it, and again if you're thinking this is somehow an all-chinese phenomenon you're being extremely naive.

 

[JohnRoberts]

If a bank delivers lousy value for what they cost, get another bank. The regulatory oversight should be to protect depositors against losses. This consumer protection thrust is all based on a "the consumer is too stupid to make their own decisions" theme, and nanny government is needed to protect them from evil businessmen.

But that's just it. You're naive thinking businessmen aren't inherently evil. I'll rephrase: only interested in making money to the owners of the company. By any means necessary.

I have started and run small businesses, and been a mid to upper level executive at a decent sized (large enough to have our own jet and a turbo-prop) but not huge corporation. I didn't find anything inherently evil about my boss or fellow executives. If  anything a few of my co-workers were not sufficiently profit motivated. We were very strongly motivated to make cool products that pleased our customers, and beat our competitors. 

I don't recall hearing a company song about cheating the customers.

Since it would be insulting for me to say you are naive, let me just say your opinion is not very well informed and does not match my personal experience. 

With relaxed regulation you're ensuring the consumer sheep will be exploited.

This is not an either/or... there is place for some degree of regulation to keep the excesses of capitalism in check. Too much kills the golden goose, not enough and you have the wild wild west... .

You seem to fail to take in account the human nature. I agree with living sounds that we do need legislation and regulation to protect us from ourselves. People are extremely stupid and will happily jump off a cliff not even knowing it in many walks of life. So why not a fence here and there to at least disallow the exploitation of this for financial gain?

Speak for yourself... I am not stupid and most people manage to balance their check books, and feed their kids.

There are some sheep out there but it isn't the majority.

In reality there's no such thing as moral, not built into any of us. Your healthcare system married to nearly unlimited insurance company power never fails to prove this whenever given a choice of making more money vs. someone's early death and miserable shutdown. That same rule applies to all business who pass their own regulation. Cheap lead paint is put on childrens toys whenever a company can get away with it, and again if you're thinking this is somehow an all-chinese phenomenon you're being extremely naive.

China is actually a good example for discussing regulation. Despite being a very old culture their venture into capitalism is relatively recent so their regulatory structure has not had time to get caught up yet. Our regulatory infrastructure is hundreds of years ahead of theirs, and European nations have been doing it way longer than us.

But I repeat more is not automatically better. Regulation needs to be thoughtful, and effective.  Right now we are watching a classic failure of regulation playing out on TV screens as Jon Corzine a very influential ex-senator and ex-governor, is now doing his best Sgt Shultz "I know nothing" imitation, when the congressional committees, ask him where the customer money went. 

In a very possible case of crony capitalism the CFTC chairman Gary Gensler was an old co-worker with Corzine back in their Goldman days, and there is real potential for some regulatory accommodation with his old friend.  I'm sure this will all be investigated and the facts will come out eventually but it appears Corzine co-mingled customer funds when his large investments in European sovereign debt kept dropping and he probably had to cover margin calls.

I don't know if he was evil, but he sure was taking a huge risk. Buying the risky sovereign debt in an attempt to pump up his investment returns. It all sounds good on paper, but there's a reason the debt was paying such high interest rates. It was RISKY. 

I'll leave to your finely tuned sense of moral judgement to determine if he is evil or just incompetent.. I'm betting on the latter. His experience as a high level politician did not prepare him well for the real world, where you have to be accountable for your decisions.

But every time there is a failure of regulation to prevent some loss, the knee jerk reaction is not to punish the regulators who failed in their job, but to add on more layers of regulation. We forget that the leaders of Worldcom and Enron went to jail because they broke already existing laws, but congress had to give us Sarbanes-Oxley in response. The 2008 housing credit debacle was in a highly regulated industry but still, they felt compelled to give us Dodd-Frank.

For the record Jon Corzine, signed his financial statements, as mandated by Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, but it didn't mean he couldn't still lose the customer's money. I have to give him some credit for not pleading the 5th amendment, before congress, but that is probably calculated to not damage his public image irreparably, He's an experienced politician so well capable of saying absolutely nothing during several days of questioning. If he took the 5th he would be declared guilty in the court of public opinion and they always get their pound of flesh, while i don't see him getting out of this one scott free. 

JR

 

[Kingston]

Speak for yourself... I am not stupid and most people manage to balance their check books, and feed their kids.

There are some sheep out there but it isn't the majority.

This is probably where our views differ most. I simply don't trust my fellow human beings make informed decisions on most things.

Of course my view isn't black and white as I set it out to be above and I realise some businesses really do function purely from someones enthusiastic vision of a happy customer. They don't have to do this. The rules of the system don't require it. They would only need to pretend, and most people simply would not care. The built in flaw of the entire stock market is that all businesses exists solely for the owner. Business as an entity does not function out of the kindness of someones heart, but as a ruthless money making machine. People seize to matter and exist as a source of money only.

As you pointed out, "The 2008 housing credit debacle was in a highly regulated industry but still, they felt compelled to give us Dodd-Frank. "

Clearly not regulated enough, and failed or most likely corrupt regulators. The businessmen will forever strive for more loop holes. The whole collapse caused by the "any means necessary" thinking.

 

[gemini86]

The american system implements an interesting form of slavery too; slavery to one's place in economic life in permanent form, once one becomes ill and needs public assistance beyond what one can afford.  Once one needs public assistance for that which insurance will not cover, or cannot be afforded, one is locked into an economic status quo.  If you are sick, and your wife gets a $0.25/hr raise, you can be guaranteed that social services will negatively adjust your assistance by the same amount.  If you inherit a small amount of money, they will balance that against your assistance.  The 'American Dream' is effectively sidelined. 

I have a brother in law who cannot afford insurance due to pre-existing conditions; diagnosed as epileptic at age 14.  He was born in Canada, and I believe has dual citizenship.  He just took a trip to the emergency room, followed by a week in hospital, that will possibly bankrupt he and his wife.  Turns out he has a non-cancerous brain tumor 1/4 the size of his brain, so at age 30 his American option is to apply for permanent disability, and the corresponding treatment that might come with.  I don't know if returning to Canada is really an option, or how long it would take to qualify.  In hospital here, he was advised not to check out as it would be hard to readmit him without insurance if he left, never mind his inability to pay for services rendered.  He's been forced to take temporary disability leave from work, since his drivers license is revoked and he's considered a safety hazard.  It's hard to see a good end.

Hard to read that and not feel a huge knot in my stomach.... My Father lost his license to epilepsy in '96 (diagnosed with a less severe version of it as a child), and with it, his business (fence contractor) and income. His situation deteriorated rapidly until our family was finally poor enough to qualify for the state's health plan, which hardly paid for his needed medications (generics only in a, then, world of brand new brand name drugs with no rivals or competition) so he just kept getting worse until finally I left home for schooling in Arizona, where the health plan is slightly better and they cover specialized treatment. After YEARS of seeing my mom working and trucking my dad to whatever job he could hold, living off food stamps and church charity, he was able to get laser surgery to remove a bunch of malformed brain tissue at the root of the problem. He had to relearn some math, and walks with a limp and a cane now, but he's alive and relatively healthy but his brain is so damaged from all the different drug combinations they tried on him because insurance wouldn't pay for anything else...

I'm thankful my father is still alive, I get to talk to him on the phone whenever I want because he was finally able to get the help he needed years. I barely remember him before the medication years but I wish I could meet that guy again...

Anyway, thank you "socialism" for saving my dad's life, I'll keep hoping a fighting for SOME sort of health care, as right now I can't afford it myself, only my wife. I just hope if I get hit by a bus, I go lights out quick, because I don't want to limp away to a life of endless debt and suffering. I'm donating my body to science, so I won't need to pay for a burial... (this is about all most people can afford to do to plan ahead)

It's late and I'm tired, so I doubt most of what I'm sayin makes sense... forgive me.

I need to stay out of the brewery...

 

[ledogboy]

Hey Rodney-
It made a hell of a lot of sense to me, and I appreciate the effort it took to write. I can't be insured, as I have a pre-existing condition (leukemia at age 23). Somehow that's a-ok.

One thing I have never understood in these arguments- so many are so fearful of government, yet blithely unconcerned about the power of modern corporations and private industry at large. I am unconvinced that "competition" and the free market are likely to solve any of these problems, as they care about little but short term profits.

 

[DaveP]

Hi Gemini86,

That's a very sad and moving story, and by the looks of the other posts, one of many similar.

From the UK point of view and that of most of Europe, the US does appear backward in this respect for such an apparently rich country.  We could expect total lack of healthcare from Africa, India and parts of China but it really is weird that such things happen in the USA.

I think it all stems from the Puritan Work Ethic which is at the heart of the American psyche.  I guess it's really all old England's fault because we kicked em out in 1630 for being a pain in the arse!

Obviously, everyone should have a sense of self-reliance an responsibility but a society which lets good people go down for an accident of birth is not healthy.

I posted earlier how the UK health service saved me and I've gone on to invent products that have earned my company millions of pounds worth of exports quite apart from all the tax I've paid over 46 years of employment.  I guess its easier for a small compact country like the UK to have laws that are the same for all, it must get complicated with different laws in different states, sounds like a nightmare to me.

best
DaveP

 

[living sounds]

In reality there's no such thing as moral, not built into any of us.

Well, it is build into most as empathy, to varying degrees, ranging from psychopaths (who make up around 1%) on the one end of the spectrum to over-sensitive altruistic people on the other end. Lack of empathy and actions permitted by it are what we commonly associate as "evil".

However, even highly empathetic people can act differently under certain circumstances, if for example the other person is perceived as part of an outgroup, or worse, not a person at all. The Milgram experiment has shown that orders received from a (perceived) legitimate authority will be followed regardless by most overruling empathy, too.

Empathy has evolved to work in situations with real people, so for example the abstract number of hunger victims can be ignored a lot easier by the neurotypical person than the look in the eyes of a starving child. Since our brains can only cope with conspecific relations  of the amount of roughly 150 people (above that exponential math really kicks in) this is the size of a pre-modern settlement where control by social mechanisms was still possible. For the bigger societies following afterwards religion provided control, to be ultimately superceded by laws.

Finally, the capitalist system, especially in the corporatist environment is set up in a way that completely ignores these factors. A public corporation has by definition to make the most money for its shareholders. This is where the worst distortions stem from. The Canadian documentary "The Corporation" provides some great information about this.

So laws, rules and regulations are in place to overcome the abstract nature of modern life, to counter the capitalist "revenue only" set up (which makes sense from an economic perspective), to cancel out coginitive biases like ingroup-outgroup  and to keep the psychopaths in check.

In Michael Moore's movie "Sicko" detailing the healthcare crisis in the US insurance industry employees are shown crying who have to call people to tell them they won't cover their expenses. They're good people, but they work in an evil system.


There are also some peculiar things unique to the US compared to the rest of the developed world, having to do with belief, but I'd rather not go into more detail here.

 

[JohnRoberts]

In reality there's no such thing as moral, not built into any of us.

Well, it is build into most as empathy, to varying degrees, ranging from psychopaths (who make up around 1%) on the one end of the spectrum to over-sensitive altruistic people on the other end. Lack of empathy and actions permitted by it are what we commonly associate as "evil".

Empathy was useful for group survival so favored by evolution.

Evil exists, but it is not common in all.

However, even highly empathetic people can act differently under certain circumstances, if for example the other person is perceived as part of an outgroup, or worse, not a person at all. The Milgram experiment has shown that orders received from a (perceived) legitimate authority will be followed regardless by most overruling empathy, too.

Empathy has evolved to work in situations with real people, so for example the abstract number of hunger victims can be ignored a lot easier by the neurotypical person than the look in the eyes of a starving child. Since our brains can only cope with conspecific relations  of the amount of roughly 150 people (above that exponential math really kicks in) this is the size of a pre-modern settlement where control by social mechanisms was still possible. For the bigger societies following afterwards religion provided control, to be ultimately superceded by laws.

The advertising community has learned a great deal about how to press or suppress our emotional buttons. Negative scare, or demonizing advertising in political campaigns is a classic example of such emotional manipulation, instead of reasoned arguments. 

Finally, the capitalist system, especially in the corporatist environment is set up in a way that completely ignores these factors. A public corporation has by definition to make the most money for its shareholders. This is where the worst distortions stem from. The Canadian documentary "The Corporation" provides some great information about this.

Unfettered capitalism, is not stable as power will accumulate into larger and larger companies, until there is no longer consumer choice. The too-big to fail example is just another example. But capitalism is also shown to be the most powerful way to create wealth that raises the standard of living for entire populations.

The disproportionate wealth in some mature societies is not IMO a failure of capitalism, but a failure of government to prevent crony capitalism as large businesses get special treatment to the detriment of smaller businesses that create more jobs and more wealth for workers. You won't get rich working for a Mcdonalds, but google was once a dorm room start up that created a bunch of millionaires.  I want more googles and less mcdonalds. We won't get this from more regulation, and government planning. Creative individual sparks, come from creative individuals allowed to prosper in a conducive environment. If anything expanding government sucks the oxygen out of the room that small business needs to survive let alone prosper.

So laws, rules and regulations are in place to overcome the abstract nature of modern life, to counter the capitalist "revenue only" set up (which makes sense from an economic perspective), to cancel out coginitive biases like ingroup-outgroup  and to keep the psychopaths in check.

;D  say that three time quickly...

In Michael Moore's movie "Sicko" detailing the healthcare crisis in the US insurance industry employees are shown crying who have to call people to tell them they won't cover their expenses. They're good people, but they work in an evil system.

Michael Moore is an interesting poster boy for his anti-capitalism attacks. His court jester act has made him a wealthy man. But he has a right to say whatever he wants, and the right to profit handsomely from that...  (note: this is an unfair argument ignoring the valifity of his claims to make the unfair association that because he is wealthy he must be dishonest.  8)  This is pretty much the same broad strokes negative treatment of successful capitalists.  ;D

There are also some peculiar things unique to the US compared to the rest of the developed world, having to do with belief, but I'd rather not go into more detail here.

Seriously thank you for not going there again. I can't tell you how annoying it is to hear that stuff. That is another reason I try not to be overly critical or stereotype other nation's individual citizens, unless it is really necessary to make some point.  I have probably met and worked with less than 50 different (west) german citizens, so for me to pretend to know how all German's think is foolish. I do have a hint, from spending time with them and traveling with them to visit and talk with music store owners across Germany years ago.

Thanks again... we can keep this friendly.

JR