toast
Gone !
Yeah, for sure !
Do you know what's the first thing a Palestinian family receive after their house is demolished by Tsahal tanks ?
- The bulldozer bill. Believe it or not.
Osama, Saddam, WMD's and the 2004 election
- Thread starter habilis
- Start date
Yeah, for sure !
Do you know what's the first thing a Palestinian family receive after their house is demolished by Tsahal tanks ?
- The bulldozer bill. Believe it or not.
toast
Gone !
How easy is it to organize a political opposition when your people cannot eat every day ? Arafat is automatically re-elected because he's respected by foreign authorities. Moreover, how could another candidate get known from the population ? You think they watch TV and look at political debates before lunch ?
At the question "Do you really want to go there", I'd answer no, as my own institute would not let me (we lost one of our students three years ago in a human bomb).
How can you dare call me an anti-semitic because I spit on fanatical doctrins whereas you assimilate a ethnic group to the behavior of desperate people ?
Same remark as above. Plus, you really should look back at who refused what agreement, and make parallels with Israelian elections for example !
Cat
Registered
Yes that is true, by my definition you wouldn't be. I accept that, it does not refute my argument. I'll even go a step further: you are hardly a democracy now. I am not referring to the elections, but to the fact that while driven by fear, more and more power is being given to the ruling authority. I posted it elsewhere and will repeat it here: giveing special powers to your president and to the law enforcers disrupts the fine balance of a democracy, which depends on the separation of powers. This step (special powers in time of war) is the first to dictatorship since Roman history. I dearly hope the US will prove me wrong. I do not want to mindlessly provoke a hyperreaction, I am genuinely concerned about the developments.
Let's assume for the moment that the Iraqi WMDs really do exist. Ok, you've got WMDs, you've got a madman (Sadaam) and you got the hated US invading and about to kick his assssss and then some. So you don't use the WMDs... You destroy them, hide all the evidence or ship them to Syria. Now I really believe Sadaam is crazy... Give me a break.
If the US doesn't find some that will just make them incompetent. Or maybe Bechtel didn't get thee contract to ship them in
If the US doesn't find some that will just make them incompetent. Or maybe Bechtel didn't get thee contract to ship them in
edX
mac shaman
you mean like the anti-arabic/anit-muslim sentiment so prevalent in the recent past and even right now - the one that has arab and muslim americans afraid to leave their homes at times.
no, it was to protect the US. it was one of those 'national security' things. they were willing to forgoe the rights of many innocent americans on the premise that some of them might be spies and enemy fighters.
i'd like to meet some of the ones that had their homes returned to them so as to verify the truth of your claim, because all of the ones i met from families that went thru it, did not get their property back. there are several families in the south bay of LA that were leasing the land they once owned to farm on. not because they couldn't afford it, but because it was taken from them during the war. i knew them back in the 70's so i can't claim that they've never regained it as i don't know. but last i was there, many of the farms were being replaced by condo developments, so i doubt that it ever passed back into their hands.
i just worry and wonder about how much longer till we do something like this again with arab americans in the name of 'protecting' anything - be it us or them. i hope we can say we learned from the mistakes of the past, but the current adminstration doesn't seem too keen on history unless they were involved in it personally.
Arden
Where mah "any" keys at?
Where's RacerX in all this? I'm sure he'd have something significant to contribute.
Just because a country has state-sponsored benefits like health, doesn't mean they are the best programs. What is the quality of health care in France? Denmark? Germany? the U.S.? Here, we have to pay for health care on our own, ensuring that we have the best coverage and care possible, because we don't want to spend our money on crappy service. When you pay for something with taxes, you the citizen have a hard time dictating how you want that money to be spent, including on training.
I'm sure he'd have something significant to contribute.Just because a country has state-sponsored benefits like health, doesn't mean they are the best programs. What is the quality of health care in France? Denmark? Germany? the U.S.? Here, we have to pay for health care on our own, ensuring that we have the best coverage and care possible, because we don't want to spend our money on crappy service. When you pay for something with taxes, you the citizen have a hard time dictating how you want that money to be spent, including on training.
Ugg
Registered
Originally posted by arden
Where's RacerX in all this?
Just because a country has state-sponsored benefits like health, doesn't mean they are the best programs. What is the quality of health care in France? Denmark? Germany? the U.S.? Here, we have to pay for health care on our own, ensuring that we have the best coverage and care possible, because we don't want to spend our money on crappy service. When you pay for something with taxes, you the citizen have a hard time dictating how you want that money to be spent, including on training.
Ahh, methinks, Arden that you haven't had much personal experience with the glories of the US health system.
First off, how can you say that we get the best coverage and care possible when ~30% of Americans don't have health coverage? Or do you mean that only the people with money get the best possible health care? If the last, then yes, we do have the best health system in the world, but only for people who can pay.
If, one day, you decide to start up your own business here in the US and want to buy insurance for yourself and employees, you will find that because you are such an itty bitty customer, the insurance companies are going to charge you a small fortune. Then, when somebody gets sick and actually has to use the insurance and it costs a fair amount of money, there is a good chance that they will drop you.
Germany has a quasi-public health system. Not unlike most public utilities in the US whereby the company is privately owned but closely regulated by the governement. In Germany everyone has health insurance. The employer pays part, the employee pays part. The insurance company offers different levels of insurance that have different pricing levels. There is also a government run insurance plan for those who are old, disabled, poor, on unemployment, students, etc.
It is a proven fact that countries that have broad insurance coverage have lower health costs and needs. In the US one of the biggest costs to hospitals is the emergency room. Americans are guaranteed medical attention at virtually any emergency room anywhere in the US. Therefore people without insurance flood the emergency rooms for routine health care. Emergency room health care is by some estimates 40% higher than if a person went to a regular doctor's office. People going to emergency rooms are also likely to wait until the condition is critical rather than acute. Critical health issues cost far more to deal with than acute ones. Also, having a regular doctor and regular check ups is much more likely to catch serious health problems before they become costly and deadly. Therefore, socialized medicine is by definition preventative rather than reactive.
It has been suggested that the best cure for the health care crisis in America is to require everyone to have health insurance just like we're required to have liablity insurance on our autos. That way everyone would be contributing more or less equally and would have access to the preventative aspects of the health system. That last part alone is the most important aspect of health care.
How to achieve this? Good question. Despite my faith in socialized medicine I do believe like you that you end up with a better product if it is handled by private industry.
1. Everyone is eligible, nobody is denied for any reason. That is one of the greatest failings of our system today. The people who need it most are denied access.
2. Preventative medicine needs to be the greatest priority.
3. Affordability. Who pays? Both employee and employer need to share the burden and it needs to be shared across the board.
4. New technologies need to proven before they are used. There was a study recently that measured the effectiveness of a certain type of knee surgery. Those who had a "placebo" surgery did just as well as those who had the real surgery. American Medicine is as full of quacks today as it was 100 years ago.
5. The industries that have the most adverse effect on a person's health should have to contribute a "death" tax to fund those too ill, old, disabled to work.
Sorry I'm rambling on but what we have isn't working. Health care costs continue to skyrocket and fewer people are covered. America is a land of extremism. There is no doubt that we have some of the best technology available to us, but it is only available to the rich.
edX
mac shaman
arden - you've obviously never worked in the healthcare industry. and you've yet to have to fight with an HMO over anything major.
our 'private system' sucks. even people that have coverage can't get adequate health care much of the time.
and as for quality of care, try working in a hospital some time. you'll find that not every doctor finished at the top of their class. not every nurse cares if you suffer. their is no reason to believe that the healthcare available to the average american is any better than in other modern countries like france, denmark, etc. in fact, there are is a lot of important healthcare research coming out of european countries - try reading some of the professional journals sometime. what you claim was probably true 30 years ago but the rest of the western world has done a lot of catching up and sometimes surpassing us.
Ugg - the best point you made was about being preventative instead of reactive healthcare. we are just starting to accept the advantages of being proactive. it is far cheaper and provides better health in the long run. insurance companies are just starting to realize that accepting certain long term costs to prevent hospitalizations is more cost effective than paying for recurrent hospitalizations. it will take a while for this to change for the best, but it is happening.
our 'private system' sucks. even people that have coverage can't get adequate health care much of the time.
and as for quality of care, try working in a hospital some time. you'll find that not every doctor finished at the top of their class. not every nurse cares if you suffer. their is no reason to believe that the healthcare available to the average american is any better than in other modern countries like france, denmark, etc. in fact, there are is a lot of important healthcare research coming out of european countries - try reading some of the professional journals sometime. what you claim was probably true 30 years ago but the rest of the western world has done a lot of catching up and sometimes surpassing us.
Ugg - the best point you made was about being preventative instead of reactive healthcare. we are just starting to accept the advantages of being proactive. it is far cheaper and provides better health in the long run. insurance companies are just starting to realize that accepting certain long term costs to prevent hospitalizations is more cost effective than paying for recurrent hospitalizations. it will take a while for this to change for the best, but it is happening.
To imagine that private health care = best possible health care is laughable. Actually, quite often patients doen't know what constitutes the best possible care. If we did, I guess we'd all be doctors (; In the US it is common practice to run a barrage of tests even when often there can be no possible benefit to the patient as a result of some of the tests. The doctors are afraid of litigation and are protecting their asssssses and making some money to boot - does this constitute 'best possible care'?
In other countries' private health care facilities it is common practice not to have certain personnel on-site but to call them in as required. And I am not talking about out in the boonies... Recently I witnessed a woman in labour with an epidural who started suffering from foetal distress. It took 12 telephone calls to get the appropriate doctor to come and sort her out (she needed a Caesarian immediately - not 40 minutes down the track - the baby was at severe risk). This was simply because the private (and very well respected hospital) did not want to pay to have obstetricians and anaesthetists on-site overnight, and not many of the private anaesthetists could be arsed to get up that late and come in.
All healthcare systems, public and private have a downside... And by the time you found out what that was and so can make an informed choice not to partake of their services in the future, you will already have suffered the consequences. That's life!
In other countries' private health care facilities it is common practice not to have certain personnel on-site but to call them in as required. And I am not talking about out in the boonies... Recently I witnessed a woman in labour with an epidural who started suffering from foetal distress. It took 12 telephone calls to get the appropriate doctor to come and sort her out (she needed a Caesarian immediately - not 40 minutes down the track - the baby was at severe risk). This was simply because the private (and very well respected hospital) did not want to pay to have obstetricians and anaesthetists on-site overnight, and not many of the private anaesthetists could be arsed to get up that late and come in.
All healthcare systems, public and private have a downside... And by the time you found out what that was and so can make an informed choice not to partake of their services in the future, you will already have suffered the consequences. That's life!
Ugg
Registered
My above post is not totally off topic in that education and health care are two of the most pressing concerns to voters today.
Whether you love Hilary or hate Hilary at least she was wiling to begin a national dialogue on health care. That is something that this country needs more than anything. It is only a few short years until the boomers begin retiring en masse. We as a nation are living longer and demanding increasingly expensive technology to lead full and happy lives. Something needs to give.
The companies that do offer insurance in this country are subsidiizng those that don't through higher health care premiums. It's time that the walmarts and mcdonalds of the world begin paying their fair share of the burden. Its no wonder that walmart has seen such phenomenal growth when it has totally avoided paying for health care for its employees. Ok, not totally but the percentage covered is miniscule in comparison to the other mainstream retailers. Doesn't this constitute and unfair market advantage?
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/business/3498963.htm
"The United States spent $4,000 per person on health care in 1998, compared with $2,860 by Switzerland, the nation holding the No. 2 ranking on spending. Yet Americans live an average of 77 years compared with the Swiss life expectancy of 80 years. Canada spends only $2,363 per person, but Canadians live an average of 81 years, as do the Japanese, who pay only $1,763 per person."
The extra costs point to inefficiencies in the U.S. health care system that likely arise from the private insurance system, said Christopher Thornberg, senior economist for the UCLA Anderson Forecast. Patients have few financial incentives to tame their demand for health care products. That results in overconsumption. Likewise, doctors have little need to curb services or offer cheaper alternatives because they know consumers pay little or none of the costs, he said."
"The United States spent $1.3 trillion on health care in 2000, about 13 percent of the gross domestic product"
Universal health care coverage would easily cut 20% off the total price (my guesstimate)
Whether you love Hilary or hate Hilary at least she was wiling to begin a national dialogue on health care. That is something that this country needs more than anything. It is only a few short years until the boomers begin retiring en masse. We as a nation are living longer and demanding increasingly expensive technology to lead full and happy lives. Something needs to give.
The companies that do offer insurance in this country are subsidiizng those that don't through higher health care premiums. It's time that the walmarts and mcdonalds of the world begin paying their fair share of the burden. Its no wonder that walmart has seen such phenomenal growth when it has totally avoided paying for health care for its employees. Ok, not totally but the percentage covered is miniscule in comparison to the other mainstream retailers. Doesn't this constitute and unfair market advantage?
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/business/3498963.htm
"The United States spent $4,000 per person on health care in 1998, compared with $2,860 by Switzerland, the nation holding the No. 2 ranking on spending. Yet Americans live an average of 77 years compared with the Swiss life expectancy of 80 years. Canada spends only $2,363 per person, but Canadians live an average of 81 years, as do the Japanese, who pay only $1,763 per person."
The extra costs point to inefficiencies in the U.S. health care system that likely arise from the private insurance system, said Christopher Thornberg, senior economist for the UCLA Anderson Forecast. Patients have few financial incentives to tame their demand for health care products. That results in overconsumption. Likewise, doctors have little need to curb services or offer cheaper alternatives because they know consumers pay little or none of the costs, he said."
"The United States spent $1.3 trillion on health care in 2000, about 13 percent of the gross domestic product"
Universal health care coverage would easily cut 20% off the total price (my guesstimate)
toast
Gone !
Originally posted by habilis
Toast: shouldn't there be a Godwin's law about health care?
Very true indeed !
Some English teacher I know just offered me her collection of Time / Newsweek / The Economist yesterday. I've finished organizing them this morning, that's what I have:
- All Time publications from year 1990 to 1997
- All Newsweek publications from year 1990 to 1995, a few from 1996 and 1997
- All The Economist ublications from year 1991 to 1996, a few from 1997
- A few antiquities: some Time and Newsweek issues from year 1973 to 1989 ! Some issues about the Shah, some about the '84 Reagan election...
I'll certainly find some stuff about the US health system in all that (five big cardboard boxes outside of my place).
---
BACK to topic, I would like to recommend a very good book about Israel / Palestine. Here's the French URL: http://www.librio.net/isbn/2-290-32143-5/.
The book is an efficient portrait of both the Israelian and the Palestinian sides. Clear difference is made between what the extremists thought and what the population thought at such or such moment of the conflict (the book stops at year 2001). Media tend to merge those opinions, whereas the truth is very different.
This book was edited by Yves Marc Ajchenbaum, Jewish geopolitist, in collaboration with Le Monde, our French equivalent of The Times. I hope it has an English translation !
Well, that woud have to start with an end to Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, at the very least. Unfortunately the current Israeli government, and probably most of its citizens, prefer a degree of violence whilst there is the possibility that they can use the resulting 'fluid situation' to annex more territory and establish eretz Israel. Until they give up this notion, peace is not very likely.
The alternative for the Israelis is to work out how to ethnically cleanse the OTs - but so far they haven't found a quick solution. So they just work at picking away at the Palestinians, hoping that eventually enough of them will flee to Jordan/Egypt to make annexation more internationally acceptable. As a result, the region will continue to be very unstable.
It would be great to see what people's ideas are on how to build peace.
The alternative for the Israelis is to work out how to ethnically cleanse the OTs - but so far they haven't found a quick solution. So they just work at picking away at the Palestinians, hoping that eventually enough of them will flee to Jordan/Egypt to make annexation more internationally acceptable. As a result, the region will continue to be very unstable.
It would be great to see what people's ideas are on how to build peace.
toast
Gone !
1. This is, at the very least, impossible. No diplomat has achieved this in the last 50 years.
2. Wrong. It is very little known in what state of pure terror the Israelian population lives. Israelian adults need qualudes to sleep normally, and their children are of the most tortured by the most obscure thoughts. Ask them ! Watch missions by NGOs and IGOs, ask people from there, go there... You'll realize what true terrorism terror is. But it's not only terrrorism: Tsahal is everywhere, Israel is a military country. Its male inhabitants spend 2 years in the army, and this is a very telling fact about the general atmosphere. Some of them consider Tsahal almost as a militia, a bit like those extreme-right paramilitary Rangers you can find in the southern states.
3. Peace is not very likely anyway in this region of the world. Some analysts have developed a strange vision of the conflict: this region is diplomatically doomed. Idea est, you can't do anything for peace there. The conflict will never end. This is not what the majority of analysts think, but some defend the point that a human paradox has been reached in Israel/Palestine: this conflict is capable of never ending. Which is a very, very worrying perpective.
4. Careful with your language, you'll raise some voices against you. Also, it is awkward to speak of 'Israel'. I can't imagine a more divided state: on one side, its army. On the other, its politicians, themselves being divided. Last but not least, its civilian population. There is no Israelian global entity.
In what respect am I wrong? If I were wrong, why do the Isralis accept a government that is hell-bent of prolonging the conflict? Or do you thing th notion of eretz Israel is a figment of my imagination? The only way Israel can expand its territory is by conflict - ergo it tries to prolong a state of low-level conflict which it will eventually use to justify annexation. Secondly, if you think the Israeli population lives in fear, can you imagine the level of fear amongst the Palestinians, never knowing when an Apache helicopter, an F16, a tank or a sniper might strike? They live in a statee of terror brought about by an illegal occupation... As someone else has pointed out the Israeli Occupation Force is very well equipped, trained and brutal. Way beyond what the Palestinians can muster with the 100 or so bombers who have blown themselves up. Most of the Palestinian 'terrorists' are armed with stones.
I speak of the state of Israel - I do not claim it is a homogenous entity. Very few states are. There are even a handful of Israelis who can see that the position of their government is wrong and who can see what would be required to end the conflict with the Palestinians. I was simply pointing out that the Israelis have a problem about how to resovle the conflict with the Palestinians, and an even bigger one as they grapple with how to annex the land they so desire - because there is a Palestinain populationn living there... From a common Israeli perspective, it would be better if the Palestinians removed themselves to Jordan. The current Israeli government, supported by most of the Israeli population, would like to see this happen - so they look for ways to make this more likely. And, please, I know there are exceptions, not least the Arabs living in Israel.
Look, as we say, downunder. At the end of the day, Israel is engaged in a brutal and illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The sooner Israel ends its occcupation the sooner there is a chance the violence might end. Bottom line.
Way off topic, but related I suppose.
toast
Gone !
1. Your previous post mentions the fact that a mojority of civilians probably prefers a certain degree of violence. Well, I think this is wrong: most Israelis are convinced that electing Sharon is a means to benefit from a legitimate self-defense against Palestinian terrorism. The Israelis are not more or less violent people than any other in the world: they are only the resultant of what fear can create when applied to a state.
2. Could you or anyone else explain what 'eretz' means please ? I don't not know this term.
3. You are making an unwanted comparison that I carefully avoided. This conflict is not a competition for telling which one of the two protagonists is the most afraid from the other, and which one should be. This is too much ingerence for exterior observers. You should consider the Israeli population is as scared as the Palestinian one, even if this fear is helluva lot more irrational and illegitimate to your eyes.
1. Again, you are making generalizations, even though you tried to state you were not. "The land they desire so" is a biased opinion: many Israelis don't give a fcuk about expansionism, even if their government does.
2. It is true this move to Jordan has been priviledged by many polls. Unfortunately, the Israel/Palestine conflict is decided by politicians, often hawks, and not by populations. Hence, looking at what the population thinks is a bad indicator for learning more about the Israeli politics. What the government wants, if you look more closely to its politics, is no migration. Too complex, too risky, too costly for a government. If I recall well, Sharon favors a 'corridor' state (little bits of land joined by 'communication tunnels', ie narrow pieces of land equipped with broad roads).
In the 1920s, after WW1, a new paradigm emerged in international theories: realism, opposed to Wilsonian/Kantian idealism. Idealism was about world peace and end of alliances between countries; realism answered: "Open your eyes. This is not going to happen."
I would like to answer as a realist (or even neo-realist to be correct): evacuation of troops do not happen for nothing. West Bank and Gaza strip are occupated for the moment and will be, for long. That's my bottom line.