h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Kids have always done stuff that their parents knew nothing about (so I remember ), but perhaps with the ease of communication today (pagers, mobile phones, internet, chat rooms, IM) and the amount of money and things to spend it on which they have, what they do is a little more worrying

They're all planning to put you and me in nursing homes as soon as we become deaf (from loud rock music) and forgetful (from drugs in our own teen years), Gosho.

What's that you say? I can't hear too well without my deaf aid - too much loud music when I was a teenager you know. As for drugs, perish the thought! I was a perfect little

"A lot of people in other parts of the world are astonished at the way that any American citizen with unpleasant views can claim First Amendment rights..."

My ex went to Croatia (post-war) to speak at a conference on issues to do with reconstruction, repatriation, and reconcilliation. In his talk, he spoke about the issue of human rights. The audience, those from the former Yugoslavia expressed surprise that Canada had entrenched rights for all citizens, regardless of their racial, religious or cultural background. Even the basic concept that people would have rights, whether entrenched in law or not, was incomprehensible to them.

You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off...

Wouldn't it be easier to just wash the blood off the doors?

Sorry, I was back at post 9 there...

Yeah, that's the one

Oh, *those* Doors.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/3315693.stm

"It would appear on the information we have that a patient has actively broken away from the vehicle"

No sh!t Sherlock! Jeez, who writes your script?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3361933.stm

In this instance, the question 'who writes your script?' is probably rhetorical because it's no doubt spin doctors and scriptwriters who wrote it. Doesn't make it sound any less ridiculous though.

Let's take it point by point.

'I believe it is natural for men and women to want health, wealth and happiness for their families and themselves.'
Got little argument with that statement. Everyone wants health and happiness. As for wealth... well I guess you have to read between the lines there. Some people want to be just comfortable, some want to be as rich as Bill Gates. Millions of people buy a lottery ticket every week with the sole intent of winning the jackpot. And then there are those nasty Communists and Socialists who want everyone to have equal shares.

That was sarcasm btw.

'I believe it is the duty of every politician to serve the people by removing the obstacles in the way of these ambitions.'
That's a very vague statement. In Michael Howard's mind, that no doubt means removing parts of the welfare state and dregulating business. In my mind it means beefing up the welfare state so that people feel secure in their lives, and heavily regulating business, even renationalising those which were privatised.

'I believe people are most likely to be happy when they are masters of their own lives, when they are not nannied or over-governed.'
If you keep telling people that they're over-governed, sooner or later they'll come to believe it. I doubt that most people have ever felt nannied by the state.

'I believe that the people should be big. That the state should be small.'
People should be big... WTF does that mean

'I believe red tape, bureaucracy, regulations, inspectorates, commissions, quangos, 'czars', 'units' and 'targets' came to help and protect us, but now we need protection from them. Armies of interferers don't contribute to human happiness.'
If you say that people dislike red tape and beaurocracy, of course you're going to get agreement, but red tape and beaurocracy never "came to help us".

'I believe that people must have every opportunity to fulfil their potential.'
So give them the opportunity by providing free, good quality education, to all, from the day a child first goes to school to the day they get their PhD. Oh wait, that would cost money and be another layer of state interference and nannying.

'I believe there is no freedom without responsibility. It is our duty to look after those who cannot help themselves.'
Got no argument with that point either.... oh, when you say 'it is our duty', you mean the duty of individuals, not society. I guess that's fine if you're rich, and have a severely handicapped child or relative who needs 24 hour care, but if you're a regular working joe and don't have that kind of dough, too damn bad. You'll just have to give up your job to provide the care, even if it means you'll have no income.

'I believe in equality of opportunity. Injustice makes us angry.'
The injustice of the Thatcher years made a lot of people angry. It also wrecked a lot of lives and tore apart a lot of families. It dashed many peoples dreams on the ground and stamped all over them. The injustice of a state whose only motivation is profit over everything.

'I believe every parent wants their child to have a better education than they had.'
So you're going to do what I suggested earlier and give everyone access to the good quality education I mentioned earlier? Didn't think so.

'I believe every child wants security for their parents in their old age.'
Yup. A state pension you can actually live on would help that one.

'I do not believe that one person's poverty is caused by another's wealth.'
Neither do I. I believe that one person's poverty is caused by another person's greed and disregard of others. Greed however, usually leads to wealth.

'I do not believe that one person's ignorance is caused by another's knowledge and education.'
Neither do I. Ignorance isn't caused, it develops from the things that influence you as you grow up. The mass media, your family, your friends, your teachers. I believe that what you're saying here Michael is that it's ok for one person to get a good education so that they can advance themselves whilst another gets a poor education and is condemned to a life of mimimum wage jobs. I believe that you're justifying a poor education system. I believe that you're excusing government's involvement (or lack thereof) in providing good education for all.

'I do not believe that one person's sickness is made worse by another's health.'
That makes absolutely no sense. I know what it is you're trying to say though - that it's ok for some people in society to be fit and healthy because they can afford it them selves, but for all those who can't afford a good doctor or private health insurance, too damn bad.

'I believe the British people are only happy when they are free.'
This British person is happy when *everyone* is free to fulfill their potential, not just those who can afford it. This British person is happy when there's no two-tier society. This British person is happy when people don't have to worry about not being able to afford the basics of life. This British person is happy when people who think like you are consigned to history Michael.'

'I believe that Britain should defend her freedom at any time, against all comers, however mighty.'
This one is obviously prompted by the situation in the Middle East. Any country should defend itself against an attacker, but it should go out and hit first.

'I believe that by good fortune, hard work, natural talent and rich diversity, these islands are home to a great people with a noble past and exciting future.'
A future which hopefully doesn't include your style of thinking Michael.

<>

I thought the British were accustomed to a class-oriented society, Gosho. Coming to a classless society (America, for instance ) would represent culture shock for them. Of course, there is more of a class structure in the Southern states. Was this not why you moved to Texas instead of Ohio, Gosho?

Worry is worry. Most of us worry at least a little bit about being able to afford the basics of life. Those who are wealthy enough not to have to worry about that usually find other things to worry about (or so I gather from what I read ). The human mind is so flexible that it can *always* find something to worry about.

Anyway, Michael Howard's credo seems to be warmed-over Thatcherism.
I don't need to know more about him. Been there, done that.

"I do not believe that one person's ignorance is caused by another's knowledge and education."

Yet another politician who doesn't know the difference between "ignorance" and "lack of education". There are a lot of people who are well-educated who are ignorant and a lot of uneducated people who are far from ignorant. Unfortunately, it is the well-educated ignoramus who denies an complete education to people far "wiser" than they.

"Why bother to give them an education. They wouldn't know what to do with it."

The British *are* accustomed to a class oriented system Paul, one which has been perpetuated by the likes of Michael Howard and all who hold similar beliefs. However, there are many Britsh people who long for a classless, or at least more even society, me included.

There have been times when British society has been less class oriented than others - immediately after the second world war for instance, which was when there was a Labour government in power, the very government which set up the welfare state, thereby giving security to whole sections of society who had never had it before.

I think it's a myth that America is a classless society. In Britain the classes are delineated by family, education, job, lineage - old money in American terms. In America the class system is simply all about money. The middle classes in America - the SUV-driving, big house-owning, soccer mom types look down on the lower classes every bit as much as the British middle classes do.

And I moved to Texas because that's where Mrs Gosho lives

Fair enough.

America isn't *supposed* to be a class-oriented society, but in fact it is. Still, I would have thought it was better than a lot of other countries.

And, I appreciate your sentiments about working for a more even society.

One needs to look no further than the US medical system to see the discrepancies between them that's got and them that's not got.

There are a lot of people who pay for their medical insurance who simply don't understand that there are people who, even though they work, cannot afford medical insurance. We aren't necessarily talking about wealthy people who pay for their insurance, we are talking about your "average" American.

When I lived in New York, I was talking with some Americans about the difference between Canada and the US. They were dismissing our "universal healthcare" as a "waste of money". They said that they didn't want their taxes going to support people who could very well afford to pay for their own health care. When I said that some people, even though they work and work long hours, could not afford health care (in the US) they, all of them, said that if someone is working, even on minimum wage, they could afford health insurance.

I said that obviously, none of them had ever tried to make ends meet on minimum wage. That medical insurance was something so far out of reach for s lot of people.

Basically, the attitude was "If you can't afford to life on minimum wage, you should either work 2 jobs or get a job that pays better." In essence, "Pluck makes luck"; pull up your bootstraps; if you are poor, it is your own damn fault.....

The fact is that, for some, that job that pays enough to let you succeed either isn't there, or is unattainable given that some people can't afford higher education, can't afford to feed themselves AND pay for higher education. It is very hard to go and get a college education if you are working two jobs at minimum wage, just to be able to keep yourself going.

Never mind that, one major medical event in one's life can deplete ones medical insurance and leave one with bills for the rest of your life.... if you have insurance to begin with......

This debate will still be running ten years from now, I reckon.

The question is, are HMOs the right solution? I've been using an HMO for almost 25 years. It seems to be all right (I'm not knocking it), but between my payments into it and those of my employer, it's costing almost $4,400 a year. Do I get $4,400 worth of health care every year? If you add in my co-payments for doctors' visits and prescription coverage, the total bill would be even higher.

Okay, you could argue that people who become devastatingly ill need far more care than that, and it could happen to anybody. Fine. It's just that HMOs have ways of avoiding coverage for people with really bad health track records. And, they often discontinue their coverage of the demographic group that needs medical care the most--namely, the frail elderly. What they really want is the healthy 25- to 40-year-olds. Their argument is that Blue Cross (which can be quite pricey) can pick up the poor risks.

So, the people who pick themselves up by their bootstraps had to come into *some* kind of good luck, either by enjoying stellar health till
they were 90, or by getting the right kind of employment break at the right time to take full advantage of it.

The beauty of having universal health care, is that, you don't have an HMO denying coverage for a lifesaving procedure.... I recall ours didn't cover something like a particular, and very effective, treatment for cervical cancer because its success rate was less than 80%. The fact that it was only used for a women for whom other treatments hadn't worked and for whom the chances without the procedure were 0%, didn't factor into their decidion. The fact was, the reason they didn't cover the procedure was that it was expensive.

Easier to let a small percentage of women die than to have to cover the cost of the procedure.

In Canada, if your provincial insurance doesn't cover a particular procedure, you can lobby your MPP and the Provincial Health Minister and have it changed.... while you might not be successful, you have a better chance than you do with an HMO.

Yes, in many provinces, the health care system is in shambles. That isn't because there isn't enough money to go around, however. It is because certain politicians prefer to cut the guts out of the system with cutbacks, than make big corporations such as Ford pay their taxes. Instead, Ford pays zero taxes and I have to wait 3 months to see an Ob/Gyn.

The politicians (the Conservative and Liberal ones) trot out the old chestnut that we have "always had universal healthcare and it isn't working any more". The fact is, that until somewhere around 1983 we paid premiums for our provincial insurance, just like any private insurance company. If you fell below a certain income-level, you filled out a form (quarterly) to have your insurance cost reduced or free.

I recall being a poverty-struck student in toronto having been cut off for my insurance because I didn't know I wasn't covered under my father's insurance any more. When I ent down to the OHIP office, the woman at the counter treated me like a panhandler. However, I filled out the form, and my premium was covered.

From then until they did away with the premiums, I used to have to fill out a declaration every quarter with all my income.

The other chestnut is that "Canadians don't pay for health insurance". Nonsense. I pay my taxes and my taxes pay for my healthcare.

Chestnut #3 is that there isn't a "two-tier" healthcare system in place in Canada. The fact is that working people like myself, who pay a higher percentage in taxes than those who make a LOT more money than I but get enormous tax-breaks, shoulder the big burden of paying for the very same healthcare that the rich partake in. The difference is that they benefit from my hard work in being able to get "free" healthcare, and, should they not want to wait like the rest of the peons for a particular treatment, they can jump the queue and pay to have it done in the US or in another province either thru private insurance or out of pocket.

Chestnut #4: The Provinial health insurance shouldn't cover CAT-scans or MRIs at "private" clinics because that is the creation of a two-tiered system. The Province already pays private clinics for blood tests, ultrasounds, X-rays, and other diagnostic tests. Why do they not allow these same diagnostic clinics to do Cat-scans and MRIs instead of having to wait 8 months to have the procedure done in a hospital lab?

Why? Because, the rich can afford to have the tests done in a private clinic and whine about "having to pay for people who could easily afford to pay fr their own healthcare". As I noted in Chestnut #3, it is the average working person who pays the highest percentage of the healthcare that rich and poor enjoy. However, it is the rich voters that the governments pander to, so they rip the guts out of the healthcare system.

As for the schools, particularily here in Ontario, again, it is those who can least afford to pay for the so-called "extras" like extra-curricular activities (like band-practice or any teacher-supervised activity, such as study-hall), sports, arts, special education, assistance for disabled students, books (BOOKS!), paper, fieldtrips, lunches, school nurses, custodial care, etc., etc., that the Conservative government either eliminated entirely or demanded "user-fees" or, in the case of paper and books, the parents pay for.

Easy for a parent who is making a good wage to supply paper, pencils, art supplies, money for field trips, school uniforms or dress-codes (if applicable), afterschool programs..... etc., etc., etc. But if you are working poor or unemplyed, you simply cannot afford to pay for such things.... And yet, you pay your taxes. Again, you pay a larger percentage of taxes, too.

Just heard on the local news channel, being spoken by someone coming out of the cinema after seeing the film 'Calendar Girls':

"At first it was like, this is unbelievable, and then I found out it was a true story, and I'm, like, wow!"

That's really, Wow!, you know, like, sad.....