What would your reply be to the following statement? “Donald Trump was right.”
That’s rather broad. Allow me to rephrase. “Donald Trump was right about immigration.”
No, not the golden escalator moment; I mean when he was actually President. And to be fair, he really didn’t know he made a statement that included a milligram of truth. It was early January of 2018, and the former, one-term President (we cannot say that enough) was doing what he does best, complaining. Specifically, he was complaining about immigrants who come from— At this point, the former, one-term President used an expletive to describe the sort of country that, in his mind, most immigrants hail from. Statistical figures from the Pew Research Center show that in that same year, 2018, the top five countries of origin were: Mexico, China (including Hong Kong and Macau), India, The Philippines, and El Salvador. I know, the former, one-term President still hasn’t said anything accurate, but bear with me. The former, one-term President also suggested that the United States should be allowing immigrants from Norway. Hmm.
I don’t know much about Norway, despite my last name and its decided Norwegian origins, but I have learned a bit about the Czech Republic. You may recall that I ended my column last month with the news that my great-nephew Cameron would be returning to Prague at the end of the summer.
I spoke with Martina to learn more about what had influenced their decision. One factor that must be stated at the outset is that she has a good job in Prague, and her income is important to their household. But there are other reasons, beginning with where she is spending the first 12 months of Cameron’s life. She is spending them at home with Cameron. I had heard that she was receiving 10 months of maternity leave; I was wrong. The 12-month leave is based on what she and Chris felt was the best option for their family. In the Czech Republic, new mothers may take up to four years’ leave, with pay. However, the entitlement is a fixed amount, and a longer time away from work results in a correspondingly lower monthly allowance. I’m sure this level of choice, in a socialist country, will come as a shock to the towering intellectuals at Fox News. It should also be noted that the United States has a federal law regarding family leave; the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), mandates 12 weeks of unpaid leave.
Advantage: Czech Republic.
I asked about education. Education is provided through university level, free of charge. In the United States, approximately 45 million people collectively owe an estimated $1.5 trillion – that’s trillion with a capital “T” – in student loan debt.
Advantage: Czech Republic.
I realize that I skipped a point. Attending university assumes that a student has managed to avoid being gunned down in a mass shooting. Since 2015, there have been two mass shootings in the Czech Republic. The last mass shooting in the United States took place on … wait for it, wait for it … wait….
Advantage: Czech Republic.
I do suspect that in the United States, given the high level of gun violence, our emergency-room doctors are more experienced and for that reason more skilled at treating gunshot wounds. Of course, the bill in the United States is going to be higher. Martina cited the extensive selection of medications at the local supermarket as evidence that we are a nation of patients who medicate themselves instead of going to the doctor. And the word she used to describe our healthcare system: “business.”
Advantage: Czech Republic.
To be fair, Martina did mention that there are some things she finds in the United States that are an improvement over her native Czech Republic. In particular, she remarked on the superior quality and selection of fresh produce in the same supermarkets that have the extensive selection of medications.
Advantage: USA.
This is not offered as a wholesale bashing of The United States of America. It is presented in the hope that this nation’s citizens and leaders will come to realize that at the global level we are unable to compete for would-be immigrants from other nations. And that we can and should do better.
| Copyright © 2021 by James Knudsen |
I have been saying this for sometime, but mostly about Scandinavia and other mainly northern European nations (Netherlands, Germany, Great Britain and France, but also Canada.)
ReplyDeleteThe taxes these other citizens pay for a single payer/ national health care service are well worth it to those citizens. They not only get a better deal financially, but they have better outcomes as well. Add parental leave, "free" (community) college and other vital services for an economy that wants to advance, and you have virtually all your basic needs met in order to progress as individuals as well. Plus, none of the stress of having to find those precious resources on your own---like where Grandma can live safely with care, and where your little pre-schoolers can go during the part of the day when you have to be at work.
Kudos to the Czech Republic!
Thia, I know we hate to recognize the fact that if the Czech Republic can afford universal health care and extended maternal leave, [that] puts the bald-faced lie to the assertion that WE can’t. Perhaps not high tech, high testing, high surgery, high drug, HIGH PROFIT, unhealthy care. Instead HIGH HEALTH CARE, like the Czechs. But our un healthcare/ insurance/ pharmaceutical cabal doesn’t care about health. They care about profit. So only the wealthy get it.
DeleteI am like the rest of you and read with interest the examples of other nations (e.g., the UK on healthcare). But I am in the minority because I think people overwork the examples of foreign nations. Do you enthusiasts really want the British healthcare system?
DeleteOr, would we all be happy because all Czechs are happy, to cite this particular case? I assume that the Czechs have access to all the types of healthcare with the same degree of speed as we do. That their population has just as diverse a demographics as ours. Etc. And, of course, that they have economic advances and worldwide roles in global economy as we do.
And since the Czechs have free education, long pregnancy leaves, and extensive other basic services and are so happy, we should copy their free colleges, their extended pregnancy leaves, their other “basic needs”? Because of all of that coverage, the Czechs are individually progressing (by some measure). It is also interesting that since all the “essential ingredients” of living are provided, the Czech still work?
Hi Chip, good to hear from you.
DeleteI can't answer about general Czech "happiness" or give statistics about whether they are all working or goofing off on the dole because they have an accessible healthcare system. Maybe that young American couple, preferring to live in the Czech Republic, could tell us.
But I do know that countries far more similar to the US – Canada and countries of Northern Europe named in my previous comment – report virtually no movements to dismantle their single-payer national healthcare systems or to adopt the American "system," if you can even call it that. They are very satisfied with their systems and the superior outcomes, and why not? Yes, some of their citizens may come to the US to get pricey but expert care in some areas, bc we do excel in many treatments if you can afford them. And some Europeans do report waiting times for some procedures in their own countries, but my ears hear complaints here all the time about the same problem – surgeries delayed for months, wait times in the doc's office, etc.
I repeat, what a message it sent a few years ago when the Olympics were held in London and the opening ceremony was a Broadway style musical all about the British National Healthcare System – which the commentator said was one of their proudest accomplishments!
[continued below]
[continued from above]
DeleteAbout the so-called "homogeneous" populations in these Northern European countries and Canada: Migrants and refugees have been changing that dynamic dramatically.
Be careful not to assume that because some liberals believe in "A" their views take them all the way to "Z" as well. Just because I would prefer to see the national healthcare model adopted here does not mean that I advocate for communism or even for a purely socialist economy. These single-payer or national healthcare nations have not abandoned their support of capitalism either, though they may practice their fairly free economies somewhat differently. Their healthcare-for-everyone approach has not bankrupted these economies, and some have continued to do quite well.
It takes a mensch to admit that our wonderful USA, unique in its lofty and beautiful vision of freedom for all, can still improve, especially in how well we actually live up to that vision. It takes humility – a rare quality – to admit that sometimes we can learn from others. No lack of patriotism in that admission. I embrace it.
Warm regards,
I agree, Thia.
DeleteBeing a Brit I can tell you, firsthand, the NHS (National Health System) is awesome! As some commenters have said, there can be wait times but those are usually for elective surgeries eg Knee replacement etc. But if you’re an emergency ie Cardiac, Vascular, Car accident etc it is immediate, no questions asked, care from start to finish.
ReplyDeleteYes there are some procedures people choose to go overseas for and they can afford to pay for them their selves or the NHS has reviewed their case and will fund it. The main issue I find here in the USA is the huge variants in Healthcare Insurance, the co pays, the out of pocket the actual policies!
But the biggest issue is the lack of control over the costs!
The same procedure in one hospital could be double or treble that of another! The cost of medication is allowed to “name that price” - none of this applies in the NHS or even other non American countries I’m sure!
The healthcare here is controlled by Corporates and Pharmaceuticals who only have one goal- $$$$$$ and more $$$$$$
The saying that “you can’t have your cake and eat it” applies to tax being paid here, no one want to contribute anymore but in the countries with “free” healthcare etc we willingly pay 23-45% to ensure that EVERYONE has access to “basic” services.
In 50 years of working I have only ever had 2 refunds from the Brit tax but since I’ve worked in USA I get one every year!!
Well hello all, lots of views here, particularly about healthcare. A couple of things that I meant to include, but did not - The Czech Republic is a small country. Between 10 & 11 million residents on a patch of ground a bit larger than South Carolina. And, they don't seem concerned with maximizing profit at every turn, a perspective I suspect many other countries, with citizens who feel a better sense of well-being, share. Perhaps there's a professor of Business who can explain how the curriculum has changed over the past 5 or 6 decades. And yes, people in The Czech Republic work, and as I reported in my piece a few years back, are incredibly gracious, even if that means making me feel older than I feel by insisting I take the seat on the train. One final thought, those who oppose programs like universal healthcare, free college, etc., often make the argument that they, "don't wanna pay for someone who's lazy!" I think that sentiment is avoided in countries with those systems precisely because they have them. If everyone is benefiting, no one can be accused of being one of, "those people." They're all people, aren't they?
ReplyDeleteIt is an excellent point, that if everyone receives the same benefit, one has a hard time saying the benefit is discriminating against one group for another. This means that, regardless of income, everyone gets free medical care, or free college, or free child care, or free unemployment payment. If there is an income cutoff, that tosses “same benefit” out the window.
DeleteThen the question is how these are paid for. In order for a benefit to be universal and not discriminating, everyone should have to pay equally for it. The upper 20% pays no more than the bottom 20%, for example. There can certainly be a debate about percent or actual dollars. If it is a percent, it could be such as everyone must pay 15% of income. If a set dollar amount, e.g., $3000, everyone pays that. The percent approach will aggravate the upper 20%. The dollar approach will aggravate the bottom 20%.
An interesting question would be: if everyone made the same income (e.g., top 20% is same as bottom 20%; a lawyer makes exactly what a restaurant cook makes), will people no longer complain? And, what does such a society or nation look like?
[continued below]
[continued from above]
DeleteThe problem facing America is that politicians and advocates on various sides of such choices use whatever data and theoretical perspectives that support their individual views. I am one of those who supports graduated taxes (i.e., you make more, you pay more). The place where I stumble is when graduated rates are hugely different, where people who make more are cast as criminals who don’t “pay their fare share”, where there is a moral necessity is argued as key (e.g., reparations for slavery), and where the proponents of the next entitlement make up stories about how beneficial or cheap it will be (e.g., like claiming the 2017 tax cut will produce so much growth that tax revenues will grow and offset the initial deficit growth; I can have just as much fun with the Democrats).
Reminds me of the comment that the place is run by crooks, but I like my crook more than yours.
This is a big chunk of the culture wars. We know that the lower 20-30% can’t afford contemporary health care and the top 1% could pay for the care of 1000. Some of us believe that the health care of all is critical for the common good. We also know that the high cost of health care benefits the medical and pharmaceutical establishment not the common good.
DeleteSo either we leave the lower income folks without healthcare, we lower the quality of care across the board but make it available to all, we have a 2 class system like the UK, or taxes go up to pay for the uninsured.
Nortin [M. Hadler, M.D.] tells us that much of the testing, procedures, medication and surgery we get in this country is expensive and of little benefit.
So here we are.
Further thoughts:
DeleteOne great government deficit reduction that comes to mind is since “much of the testing, procedures, medication, and surgery is of little benefit," then we should cut all payments by the government by at least 50% or more. Think of the improvement in funding in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. And the secondary benefits like reduced operations means fewer mistakes, or fewer claims of mistakes, and that would cut legal expenses in the nation.
Healthcare will never be universally equal for all people. It is fundamentally a scarce resource and scarce in its distribution. There are shortages of doctors in certain skills; you are not solving that by spending more. The best cancer detection or cancer treatment is not even distributed across the country. And, a farmer in North Dakota can have an undetected heart condition that someone in NYC would have detected early.
Second, you have to hunt to find a large body of people in the low income group who live “without healthcare.” It may be more inconvenient than a middle-class person. It may not have the capabilities at local levels that are elsewhere. But for “no healthcare” it is a bit like the people who don’t want to be vaccinated. It is there, but one has to go for it. Yes, it is harder to get to, but that does not mean it is absent.
The attractive aspects of the universal care advocates is that they can make the unproven claim that all the necessary money just needs to be taken from all the people who have not given their “fair share.” And the “necessary money” is never really pinned down. Ask the advocates the cost to insure similar healthcare for someone in Austin or Seattle and someone in West Virginia mountains, and see what answer you get. Then ask them if their numbers include building small hospitals in small towns now 50 miles from current ones.
“Unknown” is Acting Citizen himself, who I didn’t realize until now could use a tutorial on identifying himself when commenting. I know it’s him both by reading between the lines and from his subsequent email to me: “ I just posted a comment. It might be worth speaking to Martina herself. She speaks better English than Trump.”
ReplyDelete