THE BEER SUMMIT
Obama, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Sgt. James Crowley of the Cambridge, Mass., police are scheduled to gather over beers at a picnic table outside the Oval Office.
I've been an enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama since the beginning. While still solidly in his camp, I have been critical of what I deem a less than forceful approach to the Democrats in Congress. Not to read too much into this, but his choice of the beer he will drink at this event does give me pause. Instead of any robust strong beer, he will be having a watery, wimpy beer, Bud Light.
Obama, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Sgt. James Crowley of the Cambridge, Mass., police are scheduled to gather over beers at a picnic table outside the Oval Office.
I've been an enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama since the beginning. While still solidly in his camp, I have been critical of what I deem a less than forceful approach to the Democrats in Congress. Not to read too much into this, but his choice of the beer he will drink at this event does give me pause. Instead of any robust strong beer, he will be having a watery, wimpy beer, Bud Light.
Labels: the
4 Comments:
Dad - I thought you were making this up - being funny like you often are. But when I saw this on the news last night I couldn't believe it! I just love Obama more & more. And by the way, I love Bud Light!!
Love, Gayle
By
gayle, at 9:06 AM
Homer,
We watch this debate in the US with open-mouthed astonishment here in Britain. As you no doubt know, the British National Health Service was founded in the late 1940s by cross-party consensus in the aftermath of the War. Today, one would no more suggest that healthcare should not be free than you would suggest that education should not be free. In fact, the worst insult that a politician can (and does) throw at a rival is to suggest that s/he is against the Health Service. Mrs Thatcher was famously backed into saying, "The Health Service is safe with us" in the face of a hostile onslaught from the Labour Party.
We have also been amazed by some of the statements made by politicans in America about the Health Service. Apparently, I am much more likely to die a painful and neglected death here than in America! Giulani claimed that he was twice as likely to have died of prostate cancer had he lived in Britain than had he lived in America. I can't say if that is right or wrong, but I do know that I had a year of comprehensive treatment for Thyroid cancer and it did not cost me a bean and it appears to have worked.
A more interesting question than whether or not healthcare should be universal (it obviously should) is how to achieve that. Over here, the hospitals and specialists are directly employed by the state in the same way that teachers are. I am not aware of anyone suggesting that teachers do a worse job because of being public servants and those doctors and nurses that I know personally, including in my family, tend to be driven by a sense of vocation rather than by any desire to make money. The downside with our system is that there is no natural limit on demand. Because anyone can demand any kind of treatment and cost is not an issue, the costs of funding the NHS go up and up, apparently without limit. This can lead to delays in some fields although these never reach the life-threatening levels I see reported in American blogs and newswires. What usually happens is that a delay in, say, urology, leads to pressure on the local Member of Parliament that leads, eventually, to an increase in local funding that fixes the problem until the next overload. It is not perfect, but it seems to work by and large and it does cost less than your existing system.
I gather that Obama is looking at a private system with public insurance. The danger that I see with such a system is that the government will have to impose fixed prices on particular treatments in order to stop unlimited demands being made on the public purse. In this country, we have a system called Legal Aid which pays the legal fees of litigants and criminals (not necessarily the same people) who cannot afford lawyers. The Legal Aid system sets fixed levels of remuneration for defined types of work and what happens is that the good lawyers find they can make much more money from private clients, so they stop doing Legal Aid work. Although there are some Lawyers who are motivated purely by a desire to do justice, there is no doubt that private clients get the best lawyers overall. Might not something similar happen in healthcare with the public insurance system proposed?
By
Hugh M, at 7:47 AM
Hugh -
Your comment on health care is right on the money. Interesting information and thoughts.
I agree that the U.S. should have universal health care. Having access depend on where you work is nonsense.
You're right to be critical of nutty claims by some of those opposed to the health care reform, mostly Republicans. The wildest is that the government will be telling seniors when and how to die.
As for those politicians who claim that government involvement in health care is intolerable, let them try voting against Medicare.
Homer
By
Homer, at 8:22 AM
thats cool, i'd love too
By
pendi, at 10:24 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home