posted
Of course, you can make the argument that this is ALREADY true. Certainly the feds don't display an overwhelming understanding of medical, technical, or other specialized fields when they're writing law; they concentrate on putting out useful soundbytes crafted by the various lobbies who've actually drafted the appropriate legislation. But I can't think of a mechanism that would fix this particular problem.
I call to your attention my suggestion of a few pages back. Make government as transparent as possible. Let the people see exactly who is writing the laws, who is paying whom, what pressure is being applied to which outcome, and who benefits.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I call to your attention my suggestion of a few pages back. Make government as transparent as possible. Let the people see exactly who is writing the laws, who is paying whom, what pressure is being applied to which outcome, and who benefits.
You have more faith in the people than I do. I think the people, faced with this information, will wait for the media to summarize it for them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Interesting, then, that this is not the way it actually works in systems which do have nationalized health insurance. [Here I am thinking of Canada in particular, although it holds for New Zealand and others as well.]
Sometimes reality resists our preconceptions in the most unexpected ways.
You have your examples and I have mine. Israel, for one. And I believe doctors are not allowed to charge what they want in Canada either, but I may be wrong about that.
I was under the impression that the physicians and nurses union in Israel negotiates salaries as a unit with the Israeli government (i.e., the four "sick funds" and the government hospitals).
That is, as a union, they have a very powerful bargaining position. Rather than the government dictating where they go and what they make, the physicians work collectively to ensure adequate compensation. Additionally, Israel has several functioning HMOs, and there is separate negotiation for that compensation.
Is my understanding incorrect? I have not actually practiced in Israel (as I have in Canada), so my information is secondhand.
However, I am quite familiar with the literature regarding international comparisons of healthcare systems, as the details and outcomes measures of such is a major area of my professional research. If my understanding is incorrect, I would much appreciate clarification. Thanks!
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
(once we get that part tidied up, I can exlain my understanding of the difference in physician choice and autonomy between paracticing in the US and in Canada, if anyone is interested )
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm interested, CT, but that might merit another thread here or elsewhere. Anyway, however you'd like to post it, I'll read it. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certainly! I'm still away at conference, but I'll have more free time as the week progresses, and I'll set something up then. I've been wanting to get some links and other information all together in one place, anyway. I presented on some of this stuff recently, and I had to really dig through my memory to pull back up the Canadian Health Services Research website. I'd love to archive this all somewhere that it can be easily corrected and updated as the years pass.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Interesting, then, that this is not the way it actually works in systems which do have nationalized health insurance. [Here I am thinking of Canada in particular, although it holds for New Zealand and others as well.]
Sometimes reality resists our preconceptions in the most unexpected ways.
You have your examples and I have mine. Israel, for one. And I believe doctors are not allowed to charge what they want in Canada either, but I may be wrong about that.
I was under the impression that the physicians and nurses union in Israel negotiates salaries as a unit with the Israeli government (i.e., the four "sick funds" and the government hospitals).
That is, as a union, they have a very powerful bargaining position. Rather than the government dictating where they go and what they make, the physicians work collectively to ensure adequate compensation. Additionally, Israel has several functioning HMOs, and there is separate negotiation for that compensation.
Is my understanding incorrect? I have not actually practiced in Israel (as I have in Canada), so my information is secondhand.
However, I am quite familiar with the literature regarding international comparisons of healthcare systems, as the details and outcomes measures of such is a major area of my professional research. If my understanding is incorrect, I would much appreciate clarification. Thanks!
As far as I've been told, you can't be licensed to practice medicine in Israel unless you agree to work for one of the four health funds. You can have a private practice, but they'll tax the hell out of you, and you still have to work for one of the health funds as well.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: As far as I've been told, you can't be licensed to practice medicine in Israel unless you agree to work for one of the four health funds. You can have a private practice, but they'll tax the hell out of you, and you still have to work for one of the health funds as well.
I can't confirm that yet, but I'll definitely look it up and ask around.
Regardless, it seems that, as a union, they have a very powerful bargaining position. Rather than the government dictating where they go and what they make, the physicians work collectively to ensure adequate compensation.
How does this translate into the government telling physicians where to work and how much they will get paid? (I think I may be missing a step in your logic here. I do that a lot. )
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have more faith in the people than I do. I think the people, faced with this information, will wait for the media to summarize it for them.
Sure. But anything that makes it easier for money connections to be seen is a Good Thing. I don't pretend this suggestion, or any suggestion, will suddenly give us a perfect government. But the atmosphere needs to change. Politicians and those who would profit from owning one need to get used to the idea that the people can see everything they do, and might object a bit to profiteering mechinations that cause more harm than good.
What I want to see is accountability. We deserve to see exactly who is writing our legislation.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: As far as I've been told, you can't be licensed to practice medicine in Israel unless you agree to work for one of the four health funds. You can have a private practice, but they'll tax the hell out of you, and you still have to work for one of the health funds as well.
I can't confirm that yet, but I'll definitely look it up and ask around.
Regardless, it seems that, as a union, they have a very powerful bargaining position. Rather than the government dictating where they go and what they make, the physicians work collectively to ensure adequate compensation.
How does this translate into the government telling physicians where to work and how much they will get paid? (I think I may be missing a step in your logic here. I do that a lot. )
Maybe you're used to the idea of a union being the same thing as the members of a union. For one thing, one shouldn't have to join a union. Particularly in Israel, where at least one of the healthfunds is owned by its union. That means that the union is both employer and -- supposedly -- the advocate for the employers.
Why should a skilled individual be bound by the agreements made by some union? Why does the existence of a union all of a sudden make it okay for an individual to be denied the right to charge as he sees fit for his services? I'm not sure I see your reasoning.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Actually the Chinese I correspond with express mostly a dissatistfaction mostly with the education system, particularily about how the education policy is not really clear cut and an effective system hasn't really been created to their satisfaction though they also say that the government is trying their best and they see a steadily increasing amount of homework so they hope for the better.
IP: Logged |
quote:I've actually never lived anywhere were you COULD buy alcohol on Sundays
Interestingly, although America seems so advanced in many ways in many other ways it's pretty medieval. It's weird. Sunday is (read: should be in a non-theocratic country- see below) no different than any other day.
About a Christian America:
England is theoretically an Anglican country, I suppose, but the amount of religion that exists within the state, the government, the schooling, is actually minimal, much less than America. I agree that America only goes through the motions of being "not Christian" but don't think that means at all that it should just go ahead and make it official.
I would be very uncomfortable with a proclaimed theocracy next door, especially if that theocracy was presently the sole world superpower. I would be even more worried if I was any other religion.
About the "Worshipping Trees" comment:
Also- maybe if people "worshipped trees" a bit more rather than various other things we'd have kept more trees around. Would that be such a bad thing?
Also; just because the various "paganisms" are older religions doesn't make them invalid ones. You have to remember that.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne: you do realize the Chinese government monitors electronic communication in and out of China, and does not hesitate to review private records and sieze computer systems in order to chase down dissent?
That is, nobody you're corresponding with is likely to say anything that could be misconstrued by those in power.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
[I have deleted the text of this post because it no longer seemed germane to the trend of this particular discussion. Were it not the fact that full deletion of posts in ongoing discussions seems to be distressing to a significant number of people here, I would just have deleted the whole thing. Rather, I'll just leave it at "Nothing to see here! " and then delete once the thread is no longer active.]
quote:Particularly in Israel, where at least one of the healthfunds is owned by its union. That means that the union is both employer and -- supposedly -- the advocate for the employers.
I fail to see how this addresses your earlier stance about how the government is telling physicians what to do and what not to, what to charge and what not to charge. Furthermore, this is one healthcare fund, is it not?
And a union need not be oriented in the way you're suggesting. They could be the advocate for the employees in defense against the government.
I don't see how you've addressed CT's point at all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Well, I didn't say exactly what you said, only kind of. I even used a different country as an example! And I swear I read this entire thread before posting. I really did!
Although, I think from now on in these political threads I'll just skip to the end and write "What twinky said." It'll save time.
Also: You didn't say anything about worshipping trees. That bit is all mine!Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, hence the winky and the grin. I was mostly teasing. Plus, we don't agree on everything.
...at least, I don't think we do. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Ok, it kills the very purpose of having an open discussion if you automatically assume that the target of the conversation is brain washed or afriad to speak the truth etc.
Its like me and a friend talking about a third guy and about how he got a girl pregnant, if the guy comes around and says he didn't get the girl pregnant the equivilent would be we dismiss him of trying to cover up what we already consider fact. And remember that in this situation me and the other guy don't actually know if guy #3 actually got a girl pregnant we simply judged him ahead of time and refuse to consider his part of the discussion.
That is the same thing as discounting the testimony of Chinese Nationals if we talk about the living conditions in China.
IP: Logged |
quote: Ok, it kills the very purpose of having an open discussion if you automatically assume that the target of the conversation is brain washed or afriad to speak the truth etc.
Blayne, there is an ENORMOUS flap right now about the fact that the Chinese government recently forced Yahoo to reveal the name and address of a Chinese national who had obtained an anonymous Yahoo email account and had mentioned on a site that, as a member of the Chinese news media, he had been contacted by the government and specifically told not to make a big deal about the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. When Yahoo gave up that info, they arrested him -- and sentenced him to ten years in a maximum-security prison.
I think there's a very legitimate argument to be made that Chinese citizens should be afraid to speak the truth on the Internet. China monitors Internet traffic very, very carefully, and does not step lightly on its own people.
China is the single biggest threat to liberty -- liberty of ANY kind -- in the world today. It pales in comparison to the terrorist threat. That your sympathies might lie with China baffles me, to be honest.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I just habe a code.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Actually in IMHO the USA is the greatest threat to world liberty and has been since the 1950's.
*cough* gautelmala, Panana, El salvadore, Chile, Cuba, Argentina, Venuzela, Iraq, Mexico, Vietnam, Russia (1920), niagagura, and then there's their own human rights abuses in the bay of ghitmo, the torturing of foreign nationals (including european citizens) etc etc. */cough*
At least China does their stuff for the purpose of economic stability and accelerated economic growth, AND behind their own borders. Considering China has never invaded another nation. They've had border wars but with nations with the aility to defend themselves, the USA picking on say Gautamala does not constitute picking on someone your own size.
IP: Logged |
posted
Even if one were to accept all of your accusations, China still "wins" on sheer numbers.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
wins what? Its one thing to accuse a government of doing something wrong and quite another to actually have a valid alternative.
China has one of the world's most populas nation, in fact it is the most populus nation. With 1.3 Billion people how do you govern them?
China has been abused by the west ever since the First Opium wars in the 1840's, the powerlessness of the Manchu's, the military defeats at the hands of fellow asians who have adopted the ideals in practive of the west.
So the Chinese nationalist movement under Sun Yat-Sen overthrew the Manchu's and tried to establish a democratic republic, but the warlordism inherant in china's outer provinces, the sheer backwardsness of the country, and foreign interfearance prevented the republic of being any sort of meaningful liberal democracy.
The result was that after Sun Yat-Sen's death Chiang Kai-Shek only cooperated with the Communists and other Leftists groups in China becuase of the pressure from Moscow and at the first oppurtunity fired upon protesting Shanghai workers and turned about the CCP. The struggle for the fate of China began and for years of struggle against overwhelming odds the Communists dispite celebrated setbacks such as the Long March won out and drove Chiang to the mainland.
If anything Chiang was even more oppresive and deliberatly corrupt then the CCP beaurocracy could ever be. The fact that Taiwan became a multiparty state in 1996 doesn't change the fact that the KMT was by far a worse alternative then the CCP.
After Liberation in 1949 using Maoist doctrine of "mobilizing the peasant masses" a determined and systematic campaign to eliminate STD's, drug use, and ignorance began climaxing with the institution of simplyfied Chinese allowing the MAJORITY of Zhongguo remin to be literate for the first time in history as the Imperial Education system of pre 1949 was meant to keep education in the hands of the nobility and the rich.
The Great Leap forward did in fact accomplish a massive increase in heavy industry, light industry, and other massive infastructure development dispite setbacks such as the smelting of steal in everyone's backyard (which I haven't quite confirmed yet).
Next if you consider the Cultural Revolution, it was indeed in fact an honest attmept by Mao to increase the democratic participation of the masses to decide important issues for the nation (such as when he said "let a hundred flowers bloom and let a hundred schools of thought contend" this ended early when instead of debating socialist thought they debated the monopoly of power within the CCP). But the party can't control everything and the actual policy of the TGPCR changed province to province according to the decisions of the various Party and Revolutionary commisions/commitees. After Mao's death the Gang of Four were tried for the excesses of the revolution, and the CCP admitted that it was a mistake, even considering the massive reduction of the corruption and the beaurocracy.
Shortly afterwards Deng Xiaoping instituted Market Oriented reforms to allow for the switching of China from a sluggish central planned economy to a more flexible market economy controlled by supply and demand. Along with these reforms came various political reforms and that increase political freedoms, freedoms that KEEP on increasing as democrasy is instituted from a bottom top method. Such as the earlier grass roots democracy.
IP: Logged |
quote: At least China does their stuff for the purpose of economic stability and accelerated economic growth, AND behind their own borders.
Blayne, I honestly don't get how you can be an avowed communist and still constantly cite economic growth as a justification for mass homicide and systematic repression of one's own people.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Considering China has never invaded another nation.
There are some Tibetans who might take issue with this.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
And Tibet had been historically China's since the mongol invasions 700 years ago. See "succestion of states theory" in the UN international code of laws thingy.
"Blayne, I honestly don't get how you can be an avowed communist and still constantly cite economic growth as a justification for mass homicide and systematic repression of one's own people."
You do realize that "mass homocides" never happend right? The millions of deaths during the cultural revolution was not any kind of "official" order by the CCP but a side effect of the system disorders during the revolution.
Then again on the other hand you must realize that millions died in China a yearly basis before 1949 too right? Now China is at peace with itself and its neighbours, the Cultural Revolution was an ADMITTED mistake, you can keep critizising someone for a mistake they already honestly apologized for. Continueing to lecture them won't bring the dead back.
IP: Logged |
quote:And Tibet had been historically China's since the mongol invasions 700 years ago. See "succestion of states theory" in the UN international code of laws thingy.
Wow! Who knew the solution to so many territorial conflicts was so easy. If it was yours once, it's yours forever!
Well it's nice to piss away the lives of those Tibetans in the name of your fawning love for the PRC, but it doesn't wash. Even setting aside the naked land-grabbing aggression inherent in grabbing Tibet, they still ground those people under their freaking boots and are doing it still.
quote:You do realize that "mass homocides" never happend right? The millions of deaths during the cultural revolution was not any kind of "official" order by the CCP but a side effect of the system disorders during the revolution.
Sure they did. Maybe they weren't intentional, but they happened. Murder by negligence, by stupidity that could easily have been avoided. In the name of more money for the Man.
China is not in a stance of good peace with its neighbors. Tibet and Taiwan being the most obvious examples, but you could easily throw in South Korea, Japan, India, and Russia.
Your stance is absurd. If the PRC-OWNED media reports it, it's true! If a privately owned independant media outlet reports it, and its contrary to PRC boot-licking, well then it's just anti-China rhetoric.
That guy who got run over by that tank that time...well, it was necessary. And he had it coming anyway, for not kneeling down in front of China. So did all those others who get locked up, executed, sent to labor camps, starved to death, or 'disappeared' by the Chinese government.
PRC thinks that because its got such a massive population, it gets to spend it like currency. So do you.
posted
"Wow! Who knew the solution to so many territorial conflicts was so easy. If it was yours once, it's yours forever!
Well it's nice to piss away the lives of those Tibetans in the name of your fawning love for the PRC, but it doesn't wash. Even setting aside the naked land-grabbing aggression inherent in grabbing Tibet, they still ground those people under their freaking boots and are doing it still."
So you individually can think you can change international law and realpolitik for the last 300 years? WoW!
Seriously it is by international law China's if China had been controlled by Chiang Kai-Shek and he reoccupied Tibet forcefully we wouldn't be talking about it because China would have been one of America's "Allies".
"On the other hand, the PRC claims to rule Tibet legitimately, by claiming that Tibet has been an indivisible part of China de jure since Mongol (Yuan) conquest 700 years ago, comparable to other states such as the Kingdom of Dali and the Tangut Empire that were also incorporated into the Mongol Empire at the time and have remained in China ever since. The PRC contends that all subsequent Chinese governments onwards up till the PRC to have succeeded the Yuan Dynasty in exercising de jure sovereignty and some level of de facto power over Tibet in accordance with the succession of states theory, despite periods of autonomy, such as between 1912 and 1951. Moreover, the PRC contends that even during this period (1912-1951) commonly held to be the last period of Tibetan independence, China continued to maintain sovereignty over Tibet; no country gave Tibet diplomatic recognition; and other signs of Tibetan acknowledgement of Chinese sovereignty were present, e.g. the presence of Tibetan delegates in 1947 in Nanjing to take part in the drafting of a new constitution for the Republic of China."
quote:China is not in a stance of good peace with its neighbors. Tibet and Taiwan being the most obvious examples, but you could easily throw in South Korea, Japan, India, and Russia.
Tibet and Taiwan have always since around 700 and 400 years ago respectively been part of China and legally still do, regardless of the economic or political systems of the two. Afterall noone disputes the return of Hong Kong to China and its been away from China even longer then Taiwan.
Next, South Korea and Japan are China's main trading partners after America if they weren't at peace then they wouldn't be doing so well in trade. Russia and China have just completed "Peace Mission 2005" which were military excersizes involving some 10,000 troops and various aircraft in order to improve ties between China and Russia in the war on terror.
India? You really haven't been paying attention to the news, China and India have been discussing new trade contracts and other economic and territorial treaties, in fact China is even willing to give back some of the land it took and to cede claims on other areas on the border to help the process.
So thus China is at peace with its neighbours and once more about Taiwan is putting a GARGATUAN amount of effort to improve cross straight relations to encourage peaceful unification under two systems. Like Hong-Kong.
quote:Your stance is absurd. If the PRC-OWNED media reports it, it's true! If a privately owned independant media outlet reports it, and its contrary to PRC boot-licking, well then it's just anti-China rhetoric.
That is hardly fair or mature, anyone will know that hardly any media is unbiased mostly european medias do a better job at being neutral sources but they will still support a particular view, CNN and other news outlets can be easily considered as propoganda machines for the Bush/NeoCon administration, and besides I read the people's daily to get a better idea of what happens on their side of the ocean, I still read CNN, and the Montreal Gazette.
As for Anti China rhetoric, well I've seen only 2 and thats the Taipei Times and the Epoch times and the majority of other people on an other forum I debate on agree with me that they're extremist and would support the economic collapse of the world if it meant hurting china too.
quote:That guy who got run over by that tank that time...well, it was necessary. And he had it coming anyway, for not kneeling down in front of China. So did all those others who get locked up, executed, sent to labor camps, starved to death, or 'disappeared' by the Chinese government.
If I recal correctly the student that stood infront of that Tank got ushered away by his friends, and as for people who get to labour camps and etc. *shrug* I didn't say everything they do is right or perfect but plenty of people who are sent to said camps are criminals and if they can contribute to society rather then rot away in prison I think its would be a better system.
quote:So did all those others who get locked up, executed, sent to labor camps, starved to death, or 'disappeared' by the Chinese government.
Can you quote actual cases that happened recently? Political freedoms in China have been increasing and should be encouraged, not critisized for what already happened. Those events happened far more often in Russia then in China and look up the Bay of Ghitmo, America is doing far more often now and they are increasing its use, China on the other hand is decreasing it.
FYI ALL NATIONS spend their people like currency, its all a matter of degree and of how obvious it is.
quote:FYI ALL NATIONS spend their people like currency, its all a matter of degree and of how obvious it is.
And there is just one small but all-important difference between our government and that of a totalitarian regime:
The government here is of the people, by the people and for the people. Thus, when we choose so "spend our people" we THE PEOPLE have some say in it.
You might consider that only a matter of degree, or in the level of "obviousness" but my only suggestion is that you should try living under both systems and pick whichever one you like best.
I, for one, have already picked democracy in an open society that values individual freedom and will fight any change that lessons any aspect of that.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, any society that doesn't let its people leave freely or move freely about the country cannot possibly pass the laugh test when it calls itself a democracy.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread has been one of the most enlightening, yet terrifying, threads I've ever seen.
For myself, I'd just settle for getting rid of the 19th amendment. Ever since it passed, the country's gone straight to hell.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I'd just settle for getting rid of the 19th amendment. Ever since it passed, the country's gone straight to hell.
quote:Originally posted by twinky: No, I just habe a code.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: *cough*...
I think it's contagious.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:The government here is of the people, by the people and for the people. Thus, when we choose so "spend our people" we THE PEOPLE have some say in it.
You might consider that only a matter of degree, or in the level of "obviousness" but my only suggestion is that you should try living under both systems and pick whichever one you like best.
I, for one, have already picked democracy in an open society that values individual freedom and will fight any change that lessons any aspect of that.
Bull.
If that was true you wouldn't be overthrowing democratically elected governments left and right, you wouldn't be abducting citizens OFF THE STREET and imprisoning them in a military base in Iraq and the Carribian.
You wouldn't have arrested 800 US citizens and deported them without due process, if it was true your very institutions would not have conspired to murder John F. Kennedy, if it was true a governer in Ohio wouldn't have ordered the Kent Ohio Shootings.
Your government wouldn't have prevented thousands of black people in florida from voting in the 2000 elections, hell those elections along with the 2004 elections wouldn't have been rigged if your government was as free as you think it is.
You also wouldn't have an electorial college which makes your votes meaningless, and finally, if it was by the people and for the people, more then 20% of your country would actually bother to vote.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Yeah Tante I'm allergic to chalk dust me thinks. Since i sit in front of my class and I sneez alot, usually 4-5 times in a row.
IP: Logged |
quote: your very institutions would not have conspired to murder John F. Kennedy
Professor Hicks does present a compelling arguement that the only way Oswald could have made that shot from the book depository would have been if a bunch of pigeons had come in the window, grabbed onto him, and flown him over the expressway. In fact, there were sightings of anti-Castro pigeons in bars the night before. They were overheard saying "Coup! Coup!"
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Wha... Gasp!![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
