In Scotland, Parents Unsure They Can Photograph Their Own Kids

You don't need to dig deep to see what needed fixing in the US. Perspective on certain realities in the US is best had from a distance. America has the best and the worst of many things. The OP of this thread is of course one of the best.
 
Arjay said:
OTOH, the German system is by no means perfect: Our healthcare system essentially is divided into two service quality classes - the "public" insurances which provide a reasonably good, but basic coverage when it comes to more complicated health problems, and "private" insurances with a better coverage and better care at higher prices, and with sometimes intransparent decisions about what will be covered and what will be refused. Common to both classes are ever-rising costs and a perpetual discussion whether we will be able to finance our system for the generations to come.
Click to expand...

The real snag is that the private insurance companies are allowed to drop former clients if their health gets worse to the point where they can't pay any more - at which point they'll sooner or later drop back into the welfare backed public health system. It would not matter if the rich can opt out for a cheaper private insurance, if their insurance companies were forced to feed them through whatever eventuality - but as it is, it is merely a disguised tax benefit only given to the rich.

The problem of the major uninsured population segments (artists, the homeless and the super-rich) has been ended two years ago in Germany, as insurance is now compulsory. If you cannot prove insurance in either the public or private system, you'll be forcefully insured by the welfare authorities and the money confiscated out of your account if you are above the welfare threshold. There still is a remaining gap of illegal immigrants and a group of homeless that actively escape registration - but even though both studies and common sense suggest that there is nothing to be saved by letting anybodies health rot unless you are also willing to let him die a miserable and smelly death on your very doorstep, we probably will not deal with that as long as we have a conservative government.

Personally I still think that the original British NHS system - which simply gave anybody who walked into a hospital or doctor's waiting room access to medical care - was the smartest ever, but insurance companies built up lobbies that intervened and destroyed it.
 
Malo1961 said:
Of course we as a country didn't have to suffer the horrible and disgusting terror of 9/11 or the attacks on the London underground. In other words......we haven't lost our innocence, yet.
Click to expand...

But that is not really at the back of it - the British got through more than two decades of IRA tube bombings with a stiff upper lip and no paranoia beyond the odd "report unattended luggage" poster or two.
 
sevo said:
Personally I still think that the original British NHS system - which simply gave anybody who walked into a hospital or doctor's waiting room access to medical care - was the smartest ever, but insurance companies built up lobbies that intervened and destroyed it.
Click to expand...

From my perspective here in the U.S., I'd agree with that. Pay taxes, get medical care. Say goodbye to the need to have private health insurance.

That approach is called single payer here in the U.S. Unfortunately, advocates of single payer were not allowed to testify to Congress last year as it began considering health care reform legislation. This meant that no one every really ran the "official" numbers to show the costs and benefits of a single payer system. Since we have many people here who are paying substantially more than $1000 per month for health insurance for their family (often more than their home mortgage payment) it would have been enlightening to see how their increased tax bill would have measured up against the money they'd save by dropping that insurance.

Because relatively few Americans travel extensively in Europe, much less spend time living there, few of us know anything at all about the various European health care systems. This allows a lot of room for politicians and media propagandists to poison the waters by telling lies. The NHS, for example, is routinely bashed as grossly inefficient, with people wasting away at home, unattended by doctors or nurses, while waiting months for a hospital bed, or worse. Having lived in the UK, I know this is not true.
 
disagree with you bill. that's not the way it is around here ...

germany's system sounds like a horrid affair, leaving no freedom whatsoever for one's health decisions. i'll pass. i'll pass on the british and french systems, too. no doubt the usa system needs some tuning, but it still offers the best care in the world, some of it right here in alabama in birmingham and environs ...
 
originally posted by paulfish4570

germany's system sounds like a horrid affair, leaving no freedom whatsoever for one's health decisions. i'll pass. i'll pass on the british and french systems, too. no doubt the usa system needs some tuning, but it still offers the best care in the world, some of it right here in alabama in birmingham and environs ...

OK, so qualify how and why yours is once again `the best in the world'😉

Oh, and i`m not offended by religious signatures, just the continued we are the best at everything signature🙄

We get people travelling here from the states for hip replacements, $28.000 opposed to $50.000 plus , and our system is apparantly in need of continual `fixing'
regards
CW
 
paulfish4570 said:
mock birmingham's sordid past if you will 🙂
Click to expand...

Nah. It's more about mocking the xenophobic myopia that so many people in the US exhibit. It's like poking a stick at a bear in a cage. After a while it stops being fun and gets boring. Same stimulus, same response. Should have better things to occupy myself with really.
 
paulfish4570 said:
disagree with you bill. that's not the way it is around here ...

germany's system sounds like a horrid affair, leaving no freedom whatsoever for one's health decisions. i'll pass. i'll pass on the british and french systems, too. no doubt the usa system needs some tuning, but it still offers the best care in the world, some of it right here in alabama in birmingham and environs ...
Click to expand...

I lived in the states, tore a ligament, had an xray and a cat scan, waited for more than 3 hours, was treated for about 20 minutes, paid 1500+ Dollars. There is so much wrong with your system, I can't comprehend how anyone could defend it.

The best care in the world? How many countries have you lived in? How many systems have you experienced? That is just flat out ignorance.

The German system isn't perfect (neither is the french) but bottom line is we don't reject children for pre-existing conditions, don't let people go broke for their medical debt, and don't leave such a large part of our population uninsured.
I have a hole in my heart, broke my back twice, have two seriously ****ed up knees, tore quite a few ligaments and broke a substantial amounts of my bones. I have no trouble at all to get insurance, or change insurance. I can not move back to the United States until this reform kicks in, because of insurance.

martin
 
paulfish4570 said:
mock birmingham's sordid past if you will (bull connor has been dead a long, long time), but it has world-class health care, if nothing else worth your down-under time ... 🙂
Click to expand...


He may well be dead but his legacy lives on, at least thats what I seen when I stayed a couple off week’s in Birmingham in 2002.

I’ve worked with ‘good ole boy’s’ from the south for 20 years in the oil field but I wasn’t really prepared for my first visit South of the Mason Dixie line.
 
xenophobic myopia? for saying the birmingham area has world-class medical care? which it has? i wrote "world-class," not best in the world. and day in, day out, i'll take usa medical care over any other country in the world.
did i write ANYTHING else about any other issue? uh, no.
other than medical care, birmingham has nothing to brag about. it is a deteriorating city with horrific crime, and one of the worst homicide rates in the usa.
yep, the south is loaded with rednecks and other assorted roughnecks and ne'er-do-wells. i'm one of 'em.
back to myopic xenophobia. what would be a term for those of other countries so ready to find fault - and goodness, the usa has many, many faults - when somebody says he likes something about his own country? 🙂
 
paulfish4570 said:
disagree with you bill. that's not the way it is around here ...

Germany's system sounds like a horrid affair, leaving no freedom whatsoever for one's health decisions. i'll pass. i'll pass on the british and french systems, too. no doubt the usa system needs some tuning, but it still offers the best care in the world, some of it right here in alabama in birmingham and environs ...
Click to expand...

Can you explain how Alabama's system differs? The notion of a high-risk pool is certainly not unique, nor is the notion that school kids must have a minimum of insurance. Government provides Medicaid in every state. How much coverage does $10 but those school kids? What's the deductible? Does the program receive funding from the state?

From the posts here, and from other readings, and from experience, I see no loss of freedom or interference in medical decisions in the German or French or UK approaches, unless you consider the ability to refrain from acquiring health insurance to be an important freedom. (I don't.) What, exactly, are the freedoms you see being limited? No one has said the German approach stops people from selecting their care providers or that the government steps in to veto or alter health care decisions?

Nor will my freedoms be limited by the new law here in the U.S. I will see the same doctors and file claims with the same insurance company. (Yes, I will need to staple a piece of paper to my tax return.) However, as I've said, I'll be able to shop for a better or a cheaper policy, which I could not do without the new law, so my freedoms have actually increased. And, regarding interference in health care decisions, I think it is widely acknowledged that health care corporations routinely arbitrate and veto patient and doctor decisions. That's a serious problem that remains to be addressed. People suffer and die because anonymous corporate staffers are incentivized to refuse to preauthorize care. (My corporation vetoed my and my surgeon's choice of local hospital in which to have my surgery, for example.)

The talking point that the U.S. has the "best" or the "greatest" care in the world is meaningless. What criteria are you using to make that claim? Cure rates? Number of hospital beds per capita? Number of doctors per capita? Relative costs? Delays before treatment? Preventive care?

In some areas we may have the best technical equipment or the best leading edge medicine, but unless those benefits are accessible to all regardless of ability to pay, they don't count.

There are any number of criteria by which the U.S. system is nowhere near the "best" or the "greatest" in the world. It is self-evident that the private insurance market here is far from the best approach because it has failed to deliver medical care to all Americans regardless of ability to pay. I'd also argue it is impossible for a private for-profit system to do that.

What is it, exactly, that you are afraid of, and what evidence do you have to support that fear?
 
Last edited:
bill, we're at polar opposites on this. gonna have to politely disagree because it comes down to a matter of individual independence. it's bad enough the IRS has its hands on our money. that the IRS will be in charge of health insurance enforcement is anathema for me and, i believe, most americans.

by the way, the $10 sports insurance policy is for sports-related injuries only. there is no co-pay, or, IIRC, limit on care of the specific injury. i'm pretty sure this is the case in most (all?) public school systems in the states.

by the way, if pelosi has a hand in it, i'm a-skeered of it ... 🙂
 
Last edited:
paulfish4570 said:
xenophobic myopia? for saying the birmingham area has world-class medical care? which it has? i wrote "world-class," not best in the world. and day in, day out, i'll take usa medical care over any other country in the world.

back to myopic xenophobia. what would be a term for those of other countries so ready to find fault - and goodness, the usa has many, many faults - when somebody says he likes something about his own country? 🙂
Click to expand...

Paul, I've lived in the South for 40 years or so, so I know the old stereotypes are outmoded. I also know that, as in most places, there is a distinct difference between the cities and the rural areas.

Likewise, there is nothing wrong with cheerleading for you own country. I do it all the time.

And, yes, I agree that Birmingham has a reputation for quality health care. But, unless everyone in Alabama can receive the same treatment from the same providers as everyone else in Alabama regardless of their income, I think Birmingham has an inadequate system.

While I think "xenophobia" is an inappropriate choice of words, I do think there is a strange, emotional and unreasoned fear that motivates many people these days. It's obvious that is fueled by right-wing media, but sadly, t also happens from church pulpits. We all know the absurd and fundamentally evil assertions that 9/11, Katrina, and the Haiti earthquake were sent by God to punish sinners. Just yesterday, I saw a TV preacher deliver an elaborate presentation alleging that the Obama administration is using deceptive techniques developed by Communists in the 1950's. This type of heinous rhetoric from American pulpits is tantamount to the hateful rhetoric often spouted in mosques by extremists.
 
there are extremists of every ilk. the nice thing about america is that these extremists still are allowed to speak their minds (i use the term loosely) - and no one HAS to listen to 'em.
if my preacher ever turns from preaching the gospel to preaching politics, i am out of there. 🙂
 
paulfish4570 said:
bill, we're at polar opposites on this. gonna have to politely disagree because it comes down to a matter of individual independence. it's bad enough the IRS has its hands on our money. that the IRS will be in charge of health insurance enforcement is anathema for me...,
Click to expand...

Again I ask what independence are you going to lose? How is clipping a piece of paper to a tax return a restriction of your independence? HOw is that an "anathema"? (I strongly disagree that most Americans see it that way. The only people I know who feel that way are extreme right-wing types.)

How does the IRS limit your freedom? Is avoiding taxes the only freedom you care about?

How many freedoms would you lose if no Americans paid taxes? What roads would you drive on? What schools would you go to? Who would fund the research that saves lives in those Birmingham hospitals? Who would put out your fires? Who would stand between you and criminals? Who would defend your borders?

That list could go on and on. I know we disagree, but I think the unreasoned anti-tax and anti-government opinions of many on the far right today represent a cynical anarchism that threatens the basis of civil society.
 
There is a law in the province of Quebec, Canada, that prevent street photography.



http://www.montrealmirror.com/2005/080405/news1.html

Kristian Gravenor, Montreal's Mirrors :
"It was [photographer Gilbert Duclos'] 1988 photo of Pascale-Claude Aubry, then 17, wearing a black sweater and sporting cropped bleached hair sitting at the entrance of a downtown Scotiabank that led to the law. Duclos donated the photo to a small, now-defunct literary magazine Vice-Versa, which used the image on its cover.
Aubry – who hadn’t given permission for the shot – claimed that the photo led people to “laugh” at her. She demanded $10,000 in compensation. Duclos offered an amount of “what I would have paid a model.” She refused and sued, with the case going all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Aubry won. In 1998 the Supreme Court ordered Duclos to pay Aubry $2,000. More importantly, the court issued the edict that henceforth, publishing an unauthorized photo of somebody violates Quebec law."


​
http://dsphotographic.com/2007/05/like-street-photography-forget-quebec/

The Supreme court decision : http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1998/1998canlii817/1998canlii817.html
 
There is a law in the province of Quebec, Canada, that prevent street photography.



http://www.montrealmirror.com/2005/080405/news1.html

Kristian Gravenor, Montreal's Mirrors :
"It was [photographer Gilbert Duclos'] 1988 photo of Pascale-Claude Aubry, then 17, wearing a black sweater and sporting cropped bleached hair sitting at the entrance of a downtown Scotiabank that led to the law. Duclos donated the photo to a small, now-defunct literary magazine Vice-Versa, which used the image on its cover.
Aubry – who hadn’t given permission for the shot – claimed that the photo led people to “laugh” at her. She demanded $10,000 in compensation. Duclos offered an amount of “what I would have paid a model.” She refused and sued, with the case going all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Aubry won. In 1998 the Supreme Court ordered Duclos to pay Aubry $2,000. More importantly, the court issued the edict that henceforth, publishing an unauthorized photo of somebody violates Quebec law."


​
http://dsphotographic.com/2007/05/like-street-photography-forget-quebec/

The Supreme court decision : http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1998/1998canlii817/1998canlii817.html
 
I see this thread has wandered a long way, but on one of the byways I'm moved to ask: where is the lack of choice in the French system? You can choose your GP; your specialists; your hospital for an operation; even your ambulance service.

Back on topic, I'd always idly wanted to visit Quebec before. Now I don't.

And for another question on the original topic, how old are 'kids'? It seems to me that for most of my lifetime there has been a methodical infantilization of adolescents, with raising of the ages at which you can do many things (buy fireworks, buy a knife, ride a motorcycle, etc) and far more rigorous enforcement of things that were once technically illegal but no-one really cared about, e.g. drinking in a pub at 16 or 17. Of course the drinking age has also been raised significantly in the USA and there is a level of hysteria about it that is paralleled only by the anti-paedophile hysteria.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom