The British backlash over President Obama and the BP crisis

[dandelion]

I guess I was unclear- I was alluding to the original occupation of the Indian subcontinent....

Oh, you mean the Mughal empire then? Didnt the british just sort of quietly move in and start running it when it petered out?

The object of British rule seemed to be to protect the financial interests of British companies. When India and Pakistan were divided, it was obvious that there would be bloodshed unless England provided protection, but England failed to provide the needed protection.

All empires are about making money. See the example of the US today. Empires are required to be self-financing, certainly the british empire was. I dont really understand what you think the british might have done? Are you seriously saying either side of the indian divide would have been happy for a british army to stay there indefinitely as a police force?

 

[helgaleena]

The original occupiers of the Indian subcontinet are lost in the mists of time. There were invasions long before Mohenjo-daro and those Aryan chariot jockeys who spoke proto-Sanskrit.

Britain and its imperialist history is not lost in the mists to that extent!

 

[B_crackoff]

Then again, judging by some of the British comments, the British media wasn't airing any images of the oil spill on beaches or wildlife....

Then again Obama refused immediate expert help from the Dutch & others under the Jones Laws, which bar non-American built equipment, labour, etc...That month+ delay would contribute to a lot, & it seems doubtful from the footage that there is domestic expertise, which is probably why they set an exclusion zone around the floating barriers.

 

[B_crackoff]

Oh, you mean the Mughal empire then? Didnt the british just sort of quietly move in and start running it when it petered out?

Well it wasn't even the British, it was the East India company in all its guises. The Mughals & Maharajahs decided to use the company's private armies to wage war against each other - got into terrible debt (& securitised(LOL) & had to hand over administration as well.

They approached it with benevolent imperialism, quite at odds with the profit at all costs company approach - actually educating etc.

One must always remember that 10 times more soldiers died from dysentry, typhus etc than battlewounds, & life in the homeland was just as short & brutal.



Does any of that seem familiar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All empires are about making money. See the example of the US today. Empires are required to be self-financing, certainly the british empire was. I dont really understand what you think the british might have done? Are you seriously saying either side of the indian divide would have been happy for a british army to stay there indefinitely as a police force?

Quite right. Only Belgium ever seemed to do it for vanity. India as a country didn't exist as a unified state until the British, & don't forget the French had a large chunk, & Portugal too (& they were last to go)!

All 3 states created seem quite happy with their nationality - what a legacy.

I seem to remember that US free slaves, & US financed, founded Liberia, on top of its local population, which it then dominated as a ruling class.

Just look at its history - endless civil war & strive, & no one to blame but themselves. How odd!

 

[SilverTrain]

So now this thread has become merely a staging ground for the lobbing of nationalistic insults back and forth across the pond.

Quite disappointing.

 

[vince]

So now this thread has become merely a staging ground for the lobbing of nationalistic insults back and forth across the pond.

When wasn't it?

 

[dandelion]

well the thread title is British backlash, not british reaction or british approval. So its supposed to be about disagreement with what obama has done.

 

[MercyfulFate]

I'm still going by this as a primer of what led up to this horrific mess.

It is absurd for anyone to say that Obama should have "fixed" the entire Bush-Cheney energy policy, MMS, NOHSPC and a host of other things in the less than 15 months he'd had in office when the explosion/spill occurred. Since there could have been a disaster in any other sector of the economy that's regulated, such a statement presupposes that he had time and the responsibility to reform every corner of government and the economy in 450 days.

He's pretty cool, but he's not superman.

Hooray on financial sector reform, by the way. Cool dude has actually reformed multiple, huge broken sectors of the economy in a short time. These are down payments, and I hope big reform is still on the horizon.

If you know anything at all about the healthcare and financial reform bills, you couldn't say Obama's fixed anything in those two parts.

 

[FRE]

If you know anything at all about the healthcare and financial reform bills, you couldn't say Obama's fixed anything in those two parts.

Obama can't "fix" anything. All he can do is propose legislation, encourage Congress to pass it, and sign it if Congress does pass it. Obama is not a dictator.

The healthcare and financial reform bills are a step in the right direction, even though they are inadequate.

 

[MercyfulFate]

Obama can't "fix" anything. All he can do is propose legislation, encourage Congress to pass it, and sign it if Congress does pass it. Obama is not a dictator.

The healthcare and financial reform bills are a step in the right direction, even though they are inadequate.

For all the good in the healthcare bill, the mandatory insurance by far outweighs it in the horrible department. I have to live with this BS as it is, and it doesn't fix a goddamn thing. In fact costs rose exactly the same with everyone on insurance, it didn't improve.

It was forced into the bill by the insurance companies and it just gives them guaranteed business. I hope it gets removed, it's a pile of BS is what it is. We also didn't get a real public option, which was the most important thing they could have done.

 

[FRE]

For all the good in the healthcare bill, the mandatory insurance by far outweighs it in the horrible department. I have to live with this BS as it is, and it doesn't fix a goddamn thing. In fact costs rose exactly the same with everyone on insurance, it didn't improve.

It was forced into the bill by the insurance companies and it just gives them guaranteed business. I hope it gets removed, it's a pile of BS is what it is. We also didn't get a real public option, which was the most important thing they could have done.

The bill makes it possible for EVERYONE to get health insurance, including even those who could not previously, because of "pre-existing" conditions, get it. It has to be mandatory, otherwise many people in good health would not get insurance and those not in good health would have to pay astronomical prices if they could even get health insurance.

I fully understand that many people care nothing about people with health problems who could not previously get health insurance and risked being forced into bankruptcy if they became sick. In fact, inability to get health insurance and pay medical bills was a very common cause of bankruptcy. But again, many people who had not experienced that problem were indifferent.

 

[dandelion]

Not understanding the peculiar health care system in the US where people are just left to die, it would seem, this does seem to be a big problem with the new version. In the UK they introduced what became known as the 'poll tax' which was a flat rate property tax everyone had to pay. Obviously, the rich loved it and the poor either refused or couldnt pay. Demonstrations, 'martyrs' refusing to pay and going to prison. They eventually had to cut it massively, and then abolish it to a system where you pay more for a bigger house. Poll tax was an apt name because it caused a lot of people to 'disappear' from the electoral register.

Anyway, sounds like the new US healthcare is basically another flat rate charge. Flat rate taxes just dont work because some people cannot pay, and even if they can it is unjust.

The US does not seem to have come round to the idea that a basic (ie pretty good) level of health care should be an entitlement in a world as rich as ours, and that means organising it through taxation levied in the ways generally accepted as fair. One thing people need to accept though is to get away from the blame culture. Suing doctors because you were unlucky and got a bad one, for example. The proper solution is to weed out the bad ones before they get to do something wrong, not penalise massively after the event. Which brings us back to BP...

 

[MercyfulFate]

The bill makes it possible for EVERYONE to get health insurance, including even those who could not previously, because of "pre-existing" conditions, get it. It has to be mandatory, otherwise many people in good health would not get insurance and those not in good health would have to pay astronomical prices if they could even get health insurance.

I fully understand that many people care nothing about people with health problems who could not previously get health insurance and risked being forced into bankruptcy if they became sick. In fact, inability to get health insurance and pay medical bills was a very common cause of bankruptcy. But again, many people who had not experienced that problem were indifferent.

It doesn't reduce the costs for health insurance, and while eliminating pre-existing conditions is good, it's still going to be too expensive for a lot of people.

The public option (not really) is listed as having to be competitive with other plans on the market, that's it. It's not extremely cheap or anything, and having everyone on health insurance doesn't lower the costs across the board.

Mandatory insurance is stupid, because those that couldn't afford it before now have to somehow pay for it. If they don't, they lose money in taxes.

The mandatory thing wasn't to help people, it was to increase profits for the HMO's. They were the ones who forced it into the bill, because they told Obama and the rest they would fight the whole thing tooth and nail if they didn't.

Don't be fooled and think mandatory insurance helps people, it doesn't.

 

[FRE]

It doesn't reduce the costs for health insurance, and while eliminating pre-existing conditions is good, it's still going to be too expensive for a lot of people.

The public option (not really) is listed as having to be competitive with other plans on the market, that's it. It's not extremely cheap or anything, and having everyone on health insurance doesn't lower the costs across the board.

Mandatory insurance is stupid, because those that couldn't afford it before now have to somehow pay for it. If they don't, they lose money in taxes.

The mandatory thing wasn't to help people, it was to increase profits for the HMO's. They were the ones who forced it into the bill, because they told Obama and the rest they would fight the whole thing tooth and nail if they didn't.

Don't be fooled and think mandatory insurance helps people, it doesn't.

Instead of doing nothing except objecting to the system we have now, why not propose a better system, one which would make it possible for everyone to be covered? Also remember that the recently passed health care was a compromise; it is far from ideal. However, it is a start and as problems are found (and problems will be found), it can, if Congress is reasonable, be amended to correct the problems. Making the necessary problems can be expected to take many years. It is impossible to make changes of that magnitude and get everything right the first time, but we had to start somewhere.

Keep in mind that if a person without heath insurance cannot pay his medical bills, the fees for everyone else will be increased to compensate.

 

[MercyfulFate]

Instead of doing nothing except objecting to the system we have now, why not propose a better system, one which would make it possible for everyone to be covered? Also remember that the recently passed health care was a compromise; it is far from ideal. However, it is a start and as problems are found (and problems will be found), it can, if Congress is reasonable, be amended to correct the problems. Making the necessary problems can be expected to take many years. It is impossible to make changes of that magnitude and get everything right the first time, but we had to start somewhere.

Keep in mind that if a person without heath insurance cannot pay his medical bills, the fees for everyone else will be increased to compensate.

Once again, in Massachusetts where health insurance is mandatory costs have gone up just the same if not more than before it was required.

We needed an actual public option, we didn't get one. We needed something closer to universal healthcare and that didn't happen either.

If health insurance was cheap enough, or covered through taxes you wouldn't need to make it mandatory. Instead now what you have is people forced to pay hundreds of dollars a month for a plan that may cover almost nothing.

 

[FRE]

Not understanding the peculiar health care system in the US where people are just left to die, it would seem, this does seem to be a big problem with the new version. In the UK they introduced what became known as the 'poll tax' which was a flat rate property tax everyone had to pay. Obviously, the rich loved it and the poor either refused or couldnt pay. Demonstrations, 'martyrs' refusing to pay and going to prison. They eventually had to cut it massively, and then abolish it to a system where you pay more for a bigger house. Poll tax was an apt name because it caused a lot of people to 'disappear' from the electoral register.

Anyway, sounds like the new US healthcare is basically another flat rate charge. Flat rate taxes just dont work because some people cannot pay, and even if they can it is unjust.

The US does not seem to have come round to the idea that a basic (ie pretty good) level of health care should be an entitlement in a world as rich as ours, and that means organising it through taxation levied in the ways generally accepted as fair. One thing people need to accept though is to get away from the blame culture. Suing doctors because you were unlucky and got a bad one, for example. The proper solution is to weed out the bad ones before they get to do something wrong, not penalise massively after the event. Which brings us back to BP...

Actually, it's not a flat rate charge, like the poll tax. There is provision to subsidize those who cannot pay.

Your idea to weed out bad doctors is a good one; there is too little of that here in the U.S. It has been estimated that preventable medical errors cause somewhere between 50K and 100K death per year. Often that is because there are inadequate procedures to prevent errors. I know of one case many years ago in which a doctor directed a nurse to administer "1 sixteenth" of demerol; the more usual dose was 1 eighth. The nurse didn't understand fractions and thought that 1 sixteenth was 2 eights, so the patient got an overdose and the surgery had to be delayed for one day. Sometimes a patient will get a medication intended for another patient. Failure of medical personal to wash their hands causes infections. Some European hospitals have much lower infection rates than American hospitals and also make fewer mistakes. We may have the most advanced medical technology, but that doesn't always result in the best outcomes.

One reason (but not the only reason) for the large number of medical lawsuits here in the U.S. is that there is no other way for patients to recover their losses when an error does occur. Thus, if a medical error causes permanent disability, the problem is not covered by insurance so the patient has little choice but to sue. Another part of the problem is a culture of suing.

 

[Industrialsize]

This thread is going way off topic...........please refer to the OP. If you want to discus healthcare in the USA, please resurrect one of the countless threads on the topic.(just a suggestion)

 

[FRE]

Once again, in Massachusetts where health insurance is mandatory costs have gone up just the same if not more than before it was required.

We needed an actual public option, we didn't get one. We needed something closer to universal healthcare and that didn't happen either.

If health insurance was cheap enough, or covered through taxes you wouldn't need to make it mandatory. Instead now what you have is people forced to pay hundreds of dollars a month for a plan that may cover almost nothing.

You have made a good point. However, it was politically impossible to have it covered through taxes. Political reality sometimes considerably reduces the quality of legislation.

 

[FRE]

This thread is going way off topic...........please refer to the OP. If you want to discus healthcare in the USA, please resurrect one of the countless threads on the topic.(just a suggestion)

Good point. Obviously health care is a subject that is worth discussing. Perhaps a link could be put into this thread to a new thread for health care.

 

[dandelion]

well from my side of the pond I see this question of BP being sued to pieces yet little concern about regulations which allowed it to happen as the same mindset that has a sue-culture in medicine but does not set down a safety framework for everyone beforehand. Not that in the Uk the medical profession is very good at identifying bad doctors and doing something about them, but centring the debate about blame is the wrong approach. When something goes wrong the pieces have to be picked up, but it is everyone's fault, not just that of the individual doctor, or in this case oil company, which caused a particular incident. The entire system is to blame if people die from medical negligence, and the entire system is to blame for beaches blackened by oil. The entire government should be standing up and apologising for letting it happen. Slapping on an oil tax to pay for cleanup. A permanent national fund for pollution cleanup wouldnt be a bad idea. Im sure if they care to look they will find plenty of pollution elsewhere which needs dealing with too.