Lately the more pro-war pundits and right-wing blogosphere have switched over from their usual bitter diatribes about how we'd win the war on terror if it weren't for those meddling liberals to, (oddly enough) equally bitter diatribes about how we're just about to win the war in Iraq just when the Dems are about to pull the plug on it.
The fact that the Democratic candidates have at least a year and a half before they could possibly begin to pull the plug on anything hasn't changed this view.
I suppose this has basis in historical fact. We were winning the Vietnam War for at least ten years.
My question is: The neocons have always said we were on the cusp of victory and that things were going well. Only in the past few months with the surge plan did they ever admit that mistakes had even been made. Why should we believe them now when they were always wrong in the past?
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Friday, August 03, 2007
Sicko, the Diagnosis
Having just seen 'Sicko' with my dad, a man who is (unlike me) an expert in the field of health care. Essentially, this is what he told me:
The movie is right to say that other countries with national health insurance do a better job of taking care of their citizens' health. That's the most important thing.
Other countries with 'socialized' or semi-socialized medical systems even manage to spend less money on health care than we do. 16% of US GDP - about two trillion dollars - is spent on health care. Most European countries (and Canada) spend about 6-7% of their GDP on health care. Even socialist Scandanavian countries spend about 9%, and all those systems cover everybody, as opposed to the American system which leaves about a fifth of the population with no insurance at all. Oh, and do you have trouble imagining what two trillion dollars amounts to? Just picture two thousand billion-dollar bills.
So what does all this money buy us? One of my dad's favorite examples is that there are more MRI machines in the greater Washington DC area than in all of Canada. That sounds good for us, but the truth is, we don't have any use for all those freaking MRI machines, and it amounts to a loss for the system. The US medical system puts great value in the newest and flashiest technologies and procedures, many of which are unnecessary.
Plus, more than a fifth of the money goes to administrative costs - the inevitable result of having a myriad of companies providing care. About 20% of Kaiser's budget goes to administration. By comparison, Medicare spends 2% of its budget on the same thing.
What the movie doesn't really talk about is the differences in the health care systems. Basically, he presents Britain, Canada, France etc. as being identical to the US, just with higher taxes in lieu of health insurance costs. Actually, what many of those universal systems have is an emphasis on primary care, and thus less of an emphasis on specialists. So, those famous waiting lists have people on them for exotic or non-urgent procedures.
By far my favorite part of the movie is his interview with former Labour MP Tony Benn. It sums up in clear and unpretentious language, I think, the philosophy not just of universal health care but the whole idea of social democracy.
The movie is right to say that other countries with national health insurance do a better job of taking care of their citizens' health. That's the most important thing.
Other countries with 'socialized' or semi-socialized medical systems even manage to spend less money on health care than we do. 16% of US GDP - about two trillion dollars - is spent on health care. Most European countries (and Canada) spend about 6-7% of their GDP on health care. Even socialist Scandanavian countries spend about 9%, and all those systems cover everybody, as opposed to the American system which leaves about a fifth of the population with no insurance at all. Oh, and do you have trouble imagining what two trillion dollars amounts to? Just picture two thousand billion-dollar bills.
So what does all this money buy us? One of my dad's favorite examples is that there are more MRI machines in the greater Washington DC area than in all of Canada. That sounds good for us, but the truth is, we don't have any use for all those freaking MRI machines, and it amounts to a loss for the system. The US medical system puts great value in the newest and flashiest technologies and procedures, many of which are unnecessary.
Plus, more than a fifth of the money goes to administrative costs - the inevitable result of having a myriad of companies providing care. About 20% of Kaiser's budget goes to administration. By comparison, Medicare spends 2% of its budget on the same thing.
What the movie doesn't really talk about is the differences in the health care systems. Basically, he presents Britain, Canada, France etc. as being identical to the US, just with higher taxes in lieu of health insurance costs. Actually, what many of those universal systems have is an emphasis on primary care, and thus less of an emphasis on specialists. So, those famous waiting lists have people on them for exotic or non-urgent procedures.
By far my favorite part of the movie is his interview with former Labour MP Tony Benn. It sums up in clear and unpretentious language, I think, the philosophy not just of universal health care but the whole idea of social democracy.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
The Perons - or the Clintons?
With the mayoral elections just over, I had expected at least a temporary respite from the political posters being plastered everywhere. But, before you could say ´Pte. Jose E. Uriburu´, a sinister new figure began to make its appearance.
Concealed behind inhuman layers of make-up, this new presidential candidate - the candidate of the ruling Justicialist Party - is named Christina Kirchner. Her relation to president Nestor Kirchner? She´s his wife.
She´s also a senator, making the allusions to the Clintons rather obvious. While Christina doesn´t have an entire industry dedicated to hating her, she isn´t as popular as her husband. Supposedly, Nestor is exhausted after his first term and hopes that if his wife is the new president they can continue their policies.
In Argentina, this is not as uncommon as you might think. When Evita was still around, she was chosen as Peron´s vice-presidential candidate but had to withdraw for health reasons. Later, when Peron returned from exile only to die in office a year later, his third wife Isabel took over, with disastrous results.
Of course, even the Clintons waited a few years before transferring power. Argentine politics are a little more improvisational.
Concealed behind inhuman layers of make-up, this new presidential candidate - the candidate of the ruling Justicialist Party - is named Christina Kirchner. Her relation to president Nestor Kirchner? She´s his wife.
She´s also a senator, making the allusions to the Clintons rather obvious. While Christina doesn´t have an entire industry dedicated to hating her, she isn´t as popular as her husband. Supposedly, Nestor is exhausted after his first term and hopes that if his wife is the new president they can continue their policies.
In Argentina, this is not as uncommon as you might think. When Evita was still around, she was chosen as Peron´s vice-presidential candidate but had to withdraw for health reasons. Later, when Peron returned from exile only to die in office a year later, his third wife Isabel took over, with disastrous results.
Of course, even the Clintons waited a few years before transferring power. Argentine politics are a little more improvisational.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Teenage Mutant Neocon Turtles
Been busy lately. Here are some right-wing cartoons to pass the time: more Argentina stuff soon.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
La Vida Por Peron
In Argentina, the memory of Juan Domingo Peron and his last two wives (Evita and Isabel) continues to dominate the Argentine political scene, with every possible political party calling themselves the 'true heirs' of Peron and the enactors of his legacy. Kind of like international communism in miniature (although Peron never felt it necessary to say "Yo no soy peronista").
So, who exactly are the peronists? let's see:
Current president Nestor Kirchner? He's a peronist.
Former president and ultra-neoliberal Carlos Menem? Peronist.
The Montoneros, quasi-communist guerrilla group? Also peronists.
The Triple A (Argentine Anticommuist Alliance), secret police/death squad under the military dictatorship? Peronist too.
Peron, of course, didn't call his philosophy (such as it was) 'peronism' but 'justicialism', with the focus on social justice. Essentially it entailed strengthening the labor unions, giving aid to the poor, and breaking down the social restrictions which had dominated Argentine society since it's inception.
Twenty years in exile with Franco, though, seemed to have changed his mind a bit. During his brief third presidency, Peron exhibited far more right-wing attitudes towards the economy and far harsher reproach for social dissent, which some believe paved the way for the military dictatorship that followed soon after his death.
Of course, every professor, political analyst, and cabdriver has his own views on the subject:
Professor 1: Peronism is what your parents are. Do you have parents? Then they're peronists. When you have kids you'll be a peronist too.
Professor 2: Peronism is about social justice. But, since this is Argentina, scratch the skin and we're all fascists.
Cabdriver 1: Peronism is the Boca Juniors (Argentina's most popular soccer team) of politics.
Cabdriver 2: Peronism is whatever the hell you want it to be.
Cabdriver 3: Peronism is helping the poor and the workers...all these bullshitters just call themselves peronists to win votes.
So there you have it, I guess.
So, who exactly are the peronists? let's see:
Current president Nestor Kirchner? He's a peronist.
Former president and ultra-neoliberal Carlos Menem? Peronist.
The Montoneros, quasi-communist guerrilla group? Also peronists.
The Triple A (Argentine Anticommuist Alliance), secret police/death squad under the military dictatorship? Peronist too.
Peron, of course, didn't call his philosophy (such as it was) 'peronism' but 'justicialism', with the focus on social justice. Essentially it entailed strengthening the labor unions, giving aid to the poor, and breaking down the social restrictions which had dominated Argentine society since it's inception.
Twenty years in exile with Franco, though, seemed to have changed his mind a bit. During his brief third presidency, Peron exhibited far more right-wing attitudes towards the economy and far harsher reproach for social dissent, which some believe paved the way for the military dictatorship that followed soon after his death.
Of course, every professor, political analyst, and cabdriver has his own views on the subject:
Professor 1: Peronism is what your parents are. Do you have parents? Then they're peronists. When you have kids you'll be a peronist too.
Professor 2: Peronism is about social justice. But, since this is Argentina, scratch the skin and we're all fascists.
Cabdriver 1: Peronism is the Boca Juniors (Argentina's most popular soccer team) of politics.
Cabdriver 2: Peronism is whatever the hell you want it to be.
Cabdriver 3: Peronism is helping the poor and the workers...all these bullshitters just call themselves peronists to win votes.
So there you have it, I guess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)