Why are you guys scared of becoming France? [Archive]

Blue Velvet

Mar 11, 2009, 09:34 PM

Meanwhile, the general habit of looking at departures from the status quo in the United States and immediately comparing them to France is incredibly lazy and inappropriate.

Total taxation (including state and local government) in the United States amounts to 28.3 percent of GDP. In France, it’s 43.6 percent of GDP.

We’d have to go past such more-generous-than-the-US Anglophone welfare states as Australia, Ireland, Canada, and New Zealand before arriving at the legendary statist nightmare of Germany at 36.2 percent and then plow through the U.K., Spain, the Netherlands, and even such Nordic all-stars as Iceland, Finland, and Norway before you got a French level of taxation.

Under the circumstances, it would make a lot more sense to ask if Barack Obama is trying to turn the United States into Ireland—universal health care, slightly higher taxes, somewhat more unions, different St Patrick’s Day celebration—than France. France is just a weird bugaboo for Americans, but it’s just about the least-enlightening comparison you could ask for.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/03/vive_la_france.php

The Obama proposals are not particularly radical departures from existing practice in the US. They are certainly nothing like traditional European social democracy. Even David Brooks effectively acknowledges this, when he says that they are potentially problematic in combination rather than individually. They aren’t going to set the US on a different national trajectory, let alone make it ‘French’ or ‘European.’ Some of us might like to see this happen, but it isn’t going to, even given the ideological trauma that the US is undergoing. And arguing that American individualism is likely to wilt if exposed to nasty foreign influences smacks more of a kind of capitalist-road José Bové-ism than any serious kind of intellectual analysis.

http://crookedtimber.org/2009/03/11/let-us-rally-to-protect-the-delicate-flower-of-rugged-individualism/

Besides, nice food in France. ;)

obeygiant

Mar 11, 2009, 10:36 PM

Do you guys want to be France? Non?

Blue Velvet

Mar 11, 2009, 10:39 PM

France is just a weird bugaboo for Americans

Pourquoi? The Statue of Liberty was a gift to you from France, your revolution was inspired and assisted by them.

Where did it all go wrong?

NT1440

Mar 11, 2009, 10:42 PM

I love france!

Americans tend to have a "were better than you" attitude to make up for our countries massive shortcomings.

TuffLuffJimmy

Mar 11, 2009, 10:46 PM

Americans tend to have a "were better than you" attitude to make up for our countries massive shortcomings.

Yeah! Except apostrophes are involved.

I like France, my sister says it's beautiful and that on her trek across Europe the French were by far the nicest people she came across. I think most Americans are afraid of becoming [french] Canada, our goody two shoes brother to the north, who, by the way, has never had a girlfriend. Just saying...

jonbravo77

Mar 11, 2009, 10:47 PM

I love france!

Americans tend to have a "were better than you" attitude to make up for our countries massive shortcomings.

Funny, I get the same impression's from France.

Blue Velvet

Mar 11, 2009, 10:47 PM

NT1440

Mar 11, 2009, 10:48 PM

Yeah! Except apostrophes are involved.

I like France, my sister says it's beautiful and that on her trek across Europe the French were by far the nicest people she came across. I think most Americans are afraid of becoming [french] Canada, our goody two shoes brother to the north, who, by the way, has never had a girlfriend. Just saying...

LOL Simpsons still rule supreme!

And this is amerikuh, were arguably getting ur learnins just aint cool!:cool: (pitiful education system compared to many other countries)

NT1440

Mar 11, 2009, 10:49 PM

TuffLuffJimmy

Mar 11, 2009, 10:52 PM

és:

Mar 12, 2009, 02:11 AM

I think there are a lot of things from France that could benefit the United States. One of the best healthcare systems in the world, for a start. Although, that is deemed as tyrannical by some. It it claimed that everybody having the right to healthcare would harm their freedom. Apparently, it is much more free not to have healthcare for 50m+ people than it is to have them covered. Quite why people accept the inefficient, poorly ranked system that operates in the US is beyond most people I've spoken to about the subject. You pay most and have a dreadful ranking.

As for using the 'we'll become France'; it is thoroughly disrespectful to a country that doesn't deserve to be used as an example.

kastenbrust

Mar 12, 2009, 02:20 AM

Pourquoi? your revolution was inspired and assisted by them.

Only because France can't win its own wars.

Stick to food
nom nom nom yum yum :) I'd like to know how the French eat so unhealthily, lots of wine, croissants etc etc yet still manage to not get fat? Theres some conspiracy going on :p

iBlue

Mar 12, 2009, 02:45 AM

it5five

Mar 12, 2009, 02:48 AM

I wish the US was more like France, but I'm not your typical American. I'd much rather be living anywhere in France than anywhere in the United States.

blackfox

Mar 12, 2009, 02:51 AM

BV, although I am sure I am going to state what's already known here - I think France is still used as a comparison for the following reasons:

1. The fact that France was already given a "bad name" by some US political factions during the Iraq debacle (eg freedom fries etc). This negative connotation can continue to have (some) traction in some people's head's, despite any factual basis, due to sheer repetition and may people's knee-jerk reactions.

2. That France represents (or can represent) examples of all that is horrifying to some Conservative ilk. Huge taxes, giant bureaucracy, perceived military ineffectiveness and subsequent "lack of nerve", entrenched and large social programs - with government engineering in the marketplace perceived to limit individual and business acumen. Solidly secular - and enforced. Poor immigrant/racial integration - potential "terrorist" problems.

Not that any of this is true, necessarily - but comparing us to Ireland, however accurate, is just not going to get the job done - that being fighting any move towards increased/effective government tooth-and-nail.

és:

Mar 12, 2009, 02:53 AM

I'm not your typical American.

You actually understand what Socialism actually is, Ryan. That in itself is very un-American ;)

iBlue

Mar 12, 2009, 03:04 AM

^

I don't understand the classic or stereotypical american apprehension for socialism. I think capitalism has a lot to answer for, especially in our current economic crisis.

és:

Mar 12, 2009, 03:05 AM

^

I don't understand the classic or stereotypical american apprehension for socialism. I think capitalism has a lot to answer for, especially in our current economic crisis.

It is best not to get me started on Capitalism. :D

it5five

Mar 12, 2009, 03:08 AM

^

I don't understand the classic or stereotypical american apprehension for socialism. I think capitalism has a lot to answer for, especially in our current economic crisis.

It all comes down to poor education, in my opinion. I had to educate myself about it. In my high school economics class we didn't talk about any other economic model besides Capitalism. I'm sure there are a handful of school districts whose curriculum is different, but I wouldn't be surprised if my experience was typical. I didn't bother taking an economics class at University but I hear from people who did and they tell me it's the same at the University level too. It's pretty much just Capitalist indoctrination.

iBlue

Mar 12, 2009, 03:11 AM

^ That makes sense, it5five. (and it does explain a lot) No wonder you don't feel entirely at home. ;)

It is best not to get me started on Capitalism. :D

hehe, gotcha. ;) :D I am starting to come around that way myself. Having grown up in a fairly upper/middle class conservative religious republican family, I am coming to grips with knowing that most everything I was told as a child really doesn't suit my own way of thinking at all. Ouch goes reality for Blue Blue black sheep.

és:

Mar 12, 2009, 03:12 AM

It all comes down to poor education, in my opinion. I had to educate myself about it. In my high school economics class we didn't talk about any other economic model besides Capitalism. I'm sure there are a handful of school districts whose curriculum is different, but I wouldn't be surprised if my experience was typical. I didn't bother taking an economics class at University but I hear from people who did and they tell me it's the same at the University level too. It's pretty much just Capitalist indoctrination.

That it really sad to hear. Awful, in fact.

it5five

Mar 12, 2009, 03:14 AM

That it really sad to hear. Awful, in fact.

Though it certainly explains a lot, no?

I'd be thrilled to find out that what I went through is actually atypical. But most people I've talked to from all around the US tell me the same thing. Prove me wrong, somebody.

és:

Mar 12, 2009, 03:21 AM

Though it certainly explains a lot, no?

Of course. It shows how insecure about the system the US are. If it is the best system then let people decide that for themselves. This forum has really opened my eyes to just how cloudy the knowledge is in some areas.

Don't get me wrong, some of the greatest people that have ever lived are American. Many Americans have bashed down barrier and found new frontiers. It is just that the mass population doesn't seem to do these free thinkers any justice.

iBlue

Mar 12, 2009, 03:29 AM

Of course. It shows how insecure about the system the US are. If it is the best system then let people decide that for themselves. This forum has really opened my eyes to just how cloudy the knowledge is in some areas.
...
I am not sure if it is entirely insecurity as it is blind belief and stubbornness that the american way is the right way. You are spoon fed this stuff in most schools from an early age. It is not so easy to come by unbiased information, especially before university. So those beliefs can be ingrained deep.

és:

Mar 12, 2009, 03:36 AM

I am not sure if it is entirely insecurity as it is blind belief and stubbornness that the american way is the right way.

Maybe a mixture. The real test of an idea or philosophy is to let it stand up against other ideas, not block everything else out in the education of children. That is plain ol' indoctrination. I would imagine that in a lot of places it is the same with Christianity.

You are spoon fed this stuff in most schools from an early age. It is not so easy to come by unbiased information, especially before university. So those beliefs can be ingrained deep.

For me, that is a real crime. That isn't education so much as indoctrination into way of thinking that others want you to have.

I feel like I'm beating on America a little here, I don't mean to.

iBlue

Mar 12, 2009, 03:43 AM

Maybe a mixture. The real test of an idea or philosophy is to let it stand up against other ideas, not block everything else out in the education of children. That is plain ol' indoctrination. I would imagine that in a lot of places it is the same with Christianity.

For me, that is a real crime. That isn't education so much as indoctrination into way of thinking that others want you to have.

I feel like I'm beating on America a little here, I don't mean to.

Sounds like we agree and you do make a good point about insecurity. That would be a good example of why such biased information is typically the norm.

I know you're not ripping on the US. It has much to be proud of but also much to be ashamed of. I think that is the case with any large nation. If I've learned anything from moving abroad it's that there is no perfect place. If only collective countries could be slightly more open to the good points the others have to offer.

CorvusCamenarum

Mar 12, 2009, 04:54 AM

Only because France can't win its own wars.

I think France actually won a couple wars. They were both civil.

arkitect

Mar 12, 2009, 04:58 AM

Only because France can't win its own wars.

I think France actually won a couple wars. They were both civil.

I have to wonder where the pair of you were "educated".

Shivetya

Mar 12, 2009, 05:07 AM

Do we have to also have the minorities destroying private property at every perceived slight? Oh wait, I forgot, we already do (LA riots anyone?)

MacHipster

Mar 12, 2009, 05:32 AM

Pourquoi? The Statue of Liberty was a gift to you from France, your revolution was inspired and assisted by them.

Where did it all go wrong?

How was our Revolution inspired by them? It all went wrong in 1798 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-War). ;)

yojitani

Mar 12, 2009, 09:41 AM

There was, in fact, an article in either THE or the New Left Review in the last year about the lack of alternative models taught in economics (i.e. alternatives to Capitalism) and psychology (not taught Freud anymore these days) in the US. I'm trying to track it down. If I remember correctly, there was also a bit on why Political Science majors in the US often do not learn about different political ideologies either... it5five's experience is pretty typical by the sounds of it.

edit: ok it was in the Chronicle of Higher Ed: http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i46/46b00501.htm

... A completely unscientific survey of three randomly chosen universities confirms the exodus. A search through the philosophy-course descriptions at the University of Kansas yields a single 19th-century-survey lecture that mentions Hegel. Marx receives a passing citation in an economics class on income inequality. Freud scores zero in psychology. At the University of Arizona, Hegel again pops up
in a survey course on 19th-century philosophy; Marx is shut out of economics; and, as usual, Freud has disappeared. And at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, Hegel does not appear in philosophy courses, Marx does not turn up in economics, and Freud is bypassed in psychology.

edit no.3: I just noticed that you need a subscription to this article so I'll post the relevant bits. If you want the whole thing, PM me.

The same antihistorical imperatives operate effectively, if with less force, in economics and philosophy. Again, generalizations can be made only with qualifications, but economics departments, like
psychology departments, tend to be fiercely present-minded. Their basic fare consists of principles of economics, macroeconomics, microeconomics, finance, game theory, and statistics. To be sure,
often the departments offer lecture classes on the history of economic thought, which survey economic thinking from the Greeks to the present. But in this sprint through the past, Marx shows up as
little more than a blur. At the University of California at Los Angeles, for instance, students devote less than a week to Marx in a course on the history of economic theories. One scholar of Marx estimates that in more than 2,000 economics departments in the United States, only four offer even one class on the German revolutionary. In 1936, Wassily Leontief, who later won a Nobel in economic science,
gave a seminar on Marx in Harvard's economics department. No such seminar is given now.

yojitani

Mar 12, 2009, 09:54 AM

Do we have to also have the minorities destroying private property at every perceived slight? Oh wait, I forgot, we already do (LA riots anyone?)

So you are indicating that the beating of a black motorist and then the acquittal of the men who did it is merely a 'perceived' slight with no history or motivation beyond the event itself? Or perhaps you mean the Watts riots? There was no racial discrimination or segregation in 1965, was there? Just 'perceived slights'?

...or the banning of the Hijab is a 'perceived slight'? Or the police harassment of particular communities is just 'perceived'?

Unspeaked

Mar 12, 2009, 11:09 AM

If you go with the assumption that the average American thinks the US "way of life" is superior to the European "way of life," I think France is the country that can most easily be pointed to as symbolizing Europe.

Whether or not this is true is an entirely different matter, but generally speaking, France - its people, its language, its food, its history - is not nearly as ingrained in American culture as Italian, German, British, Spanish... heck, even Swiss ideas and customs.

So in short, my theory is it's the most "foreign" of the European countries, and that's why it's looked at so lowly.

numbersyx

Mar 12, 2009, 11:12 AM

I love france!

Americans tend to have a "were better than you" attitude to make up for our countries massive shortcomings.

... and the French don't, of course....

és:

Mar 12, 2009, 11:16 AM

... and the French don't, of course....

At least, depending on who they are talking to, they can back up their arrogance. ;)

American culture

"Computer says no."

werther

Mar 12, 2009, 11:23 AM

..because the media tells us to be.

The Statue of Liberty was a gift to you from France, your revolution was inspired and assisted by them.

France certainly assisted us but that they inspired us? Isn't that backwards?

arkitect

Mar 12, 2009, 11:34 AM

At least, depending on who they are talking to, they can back up their arrogance. ;)
Excellent. :)

"Computer says no."
Bleghh… bad example of British culture.
;)

France certainly assisted us but that they inspired us? Isn't that backwards?
Correct.
The French involvement in the American revolution bankrupted an already unstable monarchy… which pretty much guaranteed a French revolution.

Unspeaked

Mar 12, 2009, 11:36 AM

"Computer says no."

You don't think there's any irony in making that comment in a forum hosted on an American website dedicated to an American corporation?

Rt&Dzine

Mar 12, 2009, 11:38 AM

This:

Americans tend to have a "we're [fixed] better than you" attitude...... and the French don't, of course....

Also the WWII perception and the large percentage of socialist (and other left-wingers).

werther

Mar 12, 2009, 11:46 AM

Americans tend to have a "we're [fixed] better than you" attitude.

I, admittedly, have not traveled the world over, but for those countries I have visited, the sentiment is rarely different. Nationalism, though absurd, is understandable. America, for the time, just has a larger soap box.

edit: I think I went 'comma crazy' with this post.

Unspeaked

Mar 12, 2009, 11:48 AM

America, for the time, just has a larger soap box.

Exactly.

joepunk

Mar 12, 2009, 12:03 PM

The soap box I'm looking at is small and made out of paper. Kinda hard to stand on :p

arkitect

Mar 12, 2009, 12:07 PM

The soap box I'm looking at is small and made out of paper. Kinda hard to stand on :p

I think he meant these kind of soap boxes. ;)
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j227/KSzczypinski/old_tv.jpg
:D

leekohler

Mar 12, 2009, 12:40 PM

Only because France can't win its own wars.

Stick to food
nom nom nom yum yum :) I'd like to know how the French eat so unhealthily, lots of wine, croissants etc etc yet still manage to not get fat? Theres some conspiracy going on :p

Because they don't sit on their a**es all day eating McDonald's. They get out and do things, like most people in Europe tend to do. They also don't eat huge portions of food.

Anyone who's spent time in Europe and comes back here and thinks our way of life is superior is nuts. We have a lot of work to do yet.

Rt&Dzine

Mar 12, 2009, 12:52 PM

Nationalism, though absurd, is understandable. America, for the time, just has a larger soap box.

But why is this more of an issue between the U.S. and France? My point was to illustrate that some Americans think that the French, in particular, feel superior. I think this is partly because the French haven't jumped on the American-culture bandwagon and don't kowtow to America like some other European countries do. And the French are more likely to stand their ground (i.e. Iraq invasion).

leekohler

Mar 12, 2009, 01:08 PM

But why is this more of an issue between the U.S. and France? My point was to illustrate that some Americans think that the French, in particular, feel superior. I think this is partly because the French haven't jumped on the American-culture bandwagon and don't kowtow to America like some other European countries do. And the French are more likely to stand their ground (i.e. Iraq invasion).

I think that's exactly what it is.

Burnsey

Mar 12, 2009, 01:33 PM

Where did it all go wrong?

When they started disagreeing with American foreign policy?

BoyBach

Mar 12, 2009, 02:05 PM

Only because France can't win its own wars.

National Treasure Stephen Fry™ on a recent episode of QI:

You would want a Frenchman on your side in a fight because the French are one at the best countries in the world when it comes to war, despite their cowardly reputation. According to historian Niall Ferguson, of the 125 major European wars fought since 1495, France has taken part in 50, which is more than Austria (47) and England (43). Out of 168 battles fought since 387 BC, France has won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10.

I put the resentment towards France down to cheese envy.

Macky-Mac

Mar 12, 2009, 02:52 PM

I tried calling a friend who works in France to see if he had any thoughts about this question......couldn't get through tho since they were all on strike again :p

Benguitar

Mar 12, 2009, 02:58 PM

As long as there is freedom, Starbucks and Apple Stores I am happy. :)

synth3tik

Mar 12, 2009, 03:02 PM

The last time I hear "Just like France" was when discussing how to pull out of the current economy. In "We can't just start printing money, or else we will find ourselves with massive inflation 'like France'".

és:

Mar 12, 2009, 05:14 PM

You don't think there's any irony in making that comment in a forum hosted on an American website dedicated to an American corporation?

No.

Then again, I've seen 'little britain'.

Queso

Mar 12, 2009, 06:29 PM

Blue Velvet

Mar 12, 2009, 06:34 PM

And just to prove my point, Megan McArdle wades in this afternoon with a blog post called:

The US is not France

But, as Henry so ably points out, the United States is not France. We are not going to get the French health care system, because whatever we build will be layered on top of our own institutions. Unless you can meaningfully reform Medicare to do things like control physician salaries and ration care, there is no reason to expect that you will be able to do this under a wholly national system.

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/03/the_us_is_not_france.php

Give it up already! The chip on your shoulder is showing. There are 27 countries in the European Union, all of which are different in many ways. :rolleyes:

bobber205

Mar 12, 2009, 07:38 PM

I honestly have never understood why we're so special in the modern world. We used to be sure, but not now.

Tomorrow

Mar 12, 2009, 08:02 PM

Wow...when I clicked on this thread about being "scared of becoming France," I expected it to be about becoming France in a cultural sense, not a political/economic sense.

I'll stereotype the French: they smoke a lot; place a lot of emphasis on cultural things such as art, music, and theater; surrender in a war at the first opportunity; and generally believe that they're better than everyone else.

Now, I'll stereotype Americans: we eat a lot, place a lot of emphasis on material things such as large houses, large cars, and large salaries; rush into a war whenever someone kicks us in the nards; and generally believe that we're better than everyone else.

Hmm...now that I think about it, maybe we aren't so different after all....

glocke12

Mar 12, 2009, 08:04 PM

I Wouldnt want to be like a country thats famous for making food out of snails.

Tomorrow

Mar 12, 2009, 08:05 PM

I Wouldnt want to be like a country thats famous for making food out of snails.

Careful...we're famous for making food out of calves' nards. :eek:

glocke12

Mar 12, 2009, 08:08 PM

Careful...we're famous for making food out of calves' nards. :eek:

What, you don't like Rocky Mountain Oysters?

Tomorrow

Mar 12, 2009, 08:14 PM

What, you don't like Rocky Mountain Oysters?

Are you kidding? I love 'em. They'd kick me out of Texas for saying otherwise.

I'm not sure the rest of the world would share our enthusiasm for them, however. Just like there are parts of the world where eating a dog or a horse is perfectly normal, it kinda wiggs us out here to think about it.

SactoGuy18

Mar 12, 2009, 08:15 PM

Despite what Americans think of France at times, there are some good things about the country:

1) They have arguably the best national health care system in the world on a per person basis, which explains why the French are just as critical of the British NHS as Americans.

2) They have--along with Japan--the best high-speed passenger rail network on Earth.

3) They have the best commercial nuclear power program. Unlike the Americans, the French standardized on a single complete nuclear powerplant design, which mean engineers trained to run one plant can run almost any nuclear power facility in France.

4) France has one of the world's best broadband Internet services, with very fast DSL service in most metropolitan areas through Telecom France.

5) France's automotive industry has produced some groundbreaking products: the Traction Avant, the way ahead of its time Citroen DS, and Renault Megane Scenic, the vehicle that literally redefined the family car in Europe.

6) France's aerospace industry is only second to the USA. It was the French who helped create the core of what became Airbus Industrie.

leekohler

Mar 12, 2009, 08:16 PM

I Wouldnt want to be like a country thats famous for making food out of snails.

Escargots are damn good. Don't knock it til ya try it. And don't forget steak tartare. That's the best.

Macky-Mac

Mar 12, 2009, 08:17 PM

It's a serious point in the first post, though.

Regardless of whichever side of the political spectrum you're from, when any American politician says that you'll become just like France, it's clear the comparison isn't true by any sense of the imagination when it comes to discussing tax rates, particularly when Obama is only planning to restoring rates to where they were under Bill Clinton.

Somehow, saying you'll become just like Germany doesn't sound as terrifying, does it? After all, nothing wrong with German engineering.

it's an obvious bit of political spin, stereotypes and exaggeration.........hopefully you're not going to tell us that politicians where you are don't do the same sort of thing; although in your case they probably warn that you'll become just like the USA :eek: if you adopt certain policies :eek:

Yes the French have a reputation in the US, deserved or not, for having extremely high taxes and a vast wasteful bureaucracy so they make a good bogeyman when it comes to taxes.........just as when it comes to healthcare, the UK makes a good bogeyman.

Despite what you may think though, people in the USA don't really spend much time being scared of becoming France

glocke12

Mar 12, 2009, 08:18 PM

Are you kidding? I love 'em. They'd kick me out of Texas for saying otherwise.

I'm not sure the rest of the world would share our enthusiasm for them, however. Just like there are parts of the world where eating a dog or a horse is perfectly normal, it kinda wiggs us out here to think about it.

I never had the "balls" to try them. I went to the U of MT, and they had an oyster fest every fall not far from missoula....Im just not that brave.

Tomorrow

Mar 12, 2009, 08:21 PM

I never had the "balls" to try them. I went to the U of MT, and they had an oyster fest every fall not far from missoula....Im just not that brave.

When I was a teenager I had to be tricked into eating them, and I'm now glad that happened - otherwise I might never have tried them. Tastes a lot like eating a veal cutlet.

I'm surprised the folks in Montana didn't give you a hard time, though ;)

63dot

Mar 12, 2009, 08:29 PM

Bush style, lowered government spending did not work, and in the end, it wasn't about cutting government spending, but spending our money elsewhere.

Let's spend it here and get universal health care at the minimum. It's about time our country stopped worrying about what we look like to others and do what works for us, today, and not yesteryear.

Our taxes should go to something useful and my money is on domestic spending and not foreign policy. Some great ground we broke in trying to tie Al Qaeda and Iraq together.

Blue Velvet

Mar 12, 2009, 09:14 PM

it's an obvious bit of political spin, stereotypes and exaggeration.........hopefully you're not going to tell us that politicians where you are don't do the same sort of thing

No, they don't. Which is why I find it odd. You might hear the occasional phrase like 'banana republic' being used, but rarely. I mean, wasn't one of the criticisms of John Kerry was that he looked 'French'?

Do you have any idea of how brain-dead numb-nut fricking stoopid that sounds?

mactastic

Mar 12, 2009, 11:17 PM

Despite what you may think though, people in the USA don't really spend much time being scared of becoming France
Freedom fries? Freedom kissing? Freedom Toast? When you've got national-level politicians pulling stunts like "freedom fries", it tends to influence the way the rest of the world sees us.

SactoGuy18

Mar 12, 2009, 11:20 PM

Let's spend it here and get universal health care at the minimum.

But definitely NOT the British/Canadian version! The French national health care system is what we should emulate in the long run.

Tomorrow

Mar 12, 2009, 11:28 PM

I mean, wasn't one of the criticisms of John Kerry was that he looked 'French'?

Do you have any idea of how brain-dead numb-nut fricking stoopid that sounds?

Who the heck was saying that?!? And what does a French person look like, anyway? Aside from the stereotypical striped shirt, wearing a beret and neck scarf, and sporting a mustache ;)

162125162126

But yeah, if that's the best criticism of John Kerry that someone could think of, they must have been a bona fide fan of his.

TuffLuffJimmy

Mar 12, 2009, 11:33 PM

Macky-Mac

Mar 12, 2009, 11:34 PM

No, they don't. Which is why I find it odd......

really? well then no wonder europeans don't understand american politics

.... You might hear the occasional phrase like 'banana republic' being used, but rarely. I mean, wasn't one of the criticisms of John Kerry was that he looked 'French'?...?

oh, that Kerry thing was a bit of trash talk from the Limbaugh & Palin wing of american politics and it was really more a reflection of frustration over the lack of French support for the Iraq war and not some ongoing anti-French thing. I think it was more of an "old europe has turned on us and Kerry will do their bidding instead of what's right" type of thing.

Anyway, we're back to "french fries" instead of "freedom fries" ..... despite their tax rates.

...Do you have any idea of how brain-dead numb-nut fricking stoopid that sounds?

LOL, europeans are always saying that about our politics :p

Macky-Mac

Mar 12, 2009, 11:38 PM

Freedom fries? Freedom kissing? Freedom Toast? When you've got national-level politicians pulling stunts like "freedom fries", it tends to influence the way the rest of the world sees us.

yes, those things do tend to astonish and confuse the rest of the world....LOL, we're so misunderstood.....but are they still serving "freedom fries" where you live? I thought that vanished years ago when people started to realize the truth about the war.

mactastic

Mar 12, 2009, 11:54 PM

yes, those things do tend to astonish and confuse the rest of the world....LOL, we're so misunderstood.....but are they still serving "freedom fries" where you live? I thought that vanished years ago when people started to realize the truth about the war.
Impressions linger...

Plus, just as we have our stereotype of them, they also have one of us. The "freedom fries" thing gets built into that stereotype; the fact that the Congresscritter who authored that particularly odious piece of legislation later came out against the war and renounced his anti-France legislation does not.

And I think you'll find that "the truth about the war" is still very much in dispute -- just ask around a bit here.

Unspeaked

Mar 13, 2009, 12:10 AM

No.

Then again, I've seen 'little britain'.

As someone else said, that's not a particularly good example of British culture (other than maybe the Tom Baker voice overs).

CalBoy

Mar 13, 2009, 12:48 AM

I Wouldnt want to be like a country thats famous for making food out of snails.

Escargots is one of the best foods I've ever had.

It's surprisingly simple yet beguilingly delicious.

What's more, France is also well known for wines, cheeses, and a host of other culinary achievements. Would you rather be in a "fastfood nation" or a nation that eats well balanced delicious food?
I'm just going to throw this out there:
I don't want the US to become like France because they're wasteful with letters.

Of course they also get the "œ" key on their keyboards. ;) We're missing out! :eek:

Seriously. it seems like every french word ends with two or three silent letters.

The letters aren't always pronounced, but they are crucial to pronunciation.

For example, the verb "parler" (to speak) is pronounced "par-lay" (but with the correct emphasis on the r), however in a different tense one would use "parlerez" which is pronounced "par-lure-ay." Even though the 'ez' aren't "pronounced" they do affect the way you pronounce the word.

Sorry for the total tangent, but honestly, spelling in French is much easier than in English, and the letters aren't really wasted because they're Latin roots that we still use in English.

And they use a ton of confusing symbols! crème brûlée

So do the Germans, Spanish, Italians, and Portuguese. ;)

As BV is trying to point out, no one will say the same negative thing about any of those other cultures.

To answer the question in the thread, I think it all comes down to a perception of France as "the worst case scenario." Ignorant Americans are convinced through blatant propaganda that their culture is supreme in every regard, and the French over the years have become the metric for what Americans should not do. I honestly don't know why, but I can say that it's been an undertone for quite some time, but has become far more magnified during the Bush years.

Unspeaked

Mar 13, 2009, 01:10 AM

As BV is trying to point out, no one will say the same negative thing about any of those other cultures.

As I said in my earlier post, I think this is because there just isn't as much French influence in America.

What do Americans know about France? Some wine... cheese... the Eiffel Tower... Napoleon, maybe?

French food is still looked at as haughty and upscale. French movies hardly even make the art houses any longer. French language is taught in fewer and fewer schools in favor of Spanish.

On the other hand, look at Italy. How many people say "Italian" is their favorite food? I'd wager in most large cities with independent theaters, you can easily find a half dozen Italian films playing at any given time. Italian is an incredibly popular course in college, as are study abroad programs there. The same can be said for Spain, the United Kingdom, Ireland and to a lesser some of the other places.

How many "zany foreign characters" in American sitcoms are French? There's your answer right there...

sushi

Mar 13, 2009, 01:18 AM

Regardless of whichever side of the political spectrum you're from, when any American politician says that you'll become just like France, it's clear the comparison isn't true by any sense of the imagination when it comes to discussing tax rates, particularly when Obama is only planning to restoring rates to where they were under Bill Clinton.
Maybe the thought of France's tax rates are scary.

If you earn a dollar:

- France --> Takes 44 cents and leaves you 56 cents.

- US --> Takes 28 cents and leaves you 72 cents.

This means in the US that there are 16 cents more per dollar to spend on Macs and other Apple products. :)

FrankieTDouglas

Mar 13, 2009, 01:19 AM

France is my top pick for places to eventually settle down and live in. Why would I not want the USA to be more like it?

és:

Mar 13, 2009, 03:15 AM

Maybe the thought of France's tax rates are scary.

If you earn a dollar:

- France --> Takes 44 cents and leaves you 56 cents.

- US --> Takes 28 cents and leaves you 72 cents.

Cool.

You're aware that it isn't actually true though, right?

French income tax...

€0-€5,687 (currently $7,347) - 0% Tax
€5,688 - €11,344 (currently $14,641) - 5.5% Tax
€11,345 to €25,195 (currently $32,545) - 14% Tax
€25,196 to €67,546 (currently $87,253) - 30% Tax
€67,546 & above - 40% Tax

To have any fair comparison, you're going to want to factor in the cost of top class healthcare, too.

iBlue

Mar 13, 2009, 03:27 AM

You're aware that it isn't actually true though, right?

French income tax...

€0-€5,687 (currently $7,347) - 0% Tax
€5,688 - €11,344 (currently $14,641) - 5.5% Tax
€11,345 to €25,195 (currently $32,545) - 14% Tax
€25,196 to €67,546 (currently $87,253) - 30% Tax
€67,546 & above - 40% Tax

To have any fair comparison, you're going to want to factor in the cost of top class healthcare, too.
May want to clarify that you are only taxed at those higher rates on the amount you make over that. So only what you make over €67,546 is taxed at 40%, not all of it. (hoping this makes sense) I've had that concept throw me for a loop before until someone explained. :o

és:

Mar 13, 2009, 03:43 AM

May want to clarify that you are only taxed at those higher rates on the amount you make over that. So only what you make over €67,546 is taxed at 40%, not all of it. (hoping this makes sense) I've had that concept throw me for a loop before until someone explained. :o

Of course. I guess I should have explained that.

For example, if you earn €67,550..

€4 gets taxed at 40%.
€42,350 gets taxed at 30%
€13,850 gets taxed at 14%
€5,656 gets taxed at 5.5%
€5,687 gets no tax

That is actually €3 Euros short, but we won't mention that because I can be bothered to redo the maths.

Queso

Mar 13, 2009, 04:58 AM

Blue Velvet

Mar 13, 2009, 07:09 AM

There are a lot of people who don't understand how progressive taxation works.

A 63-year-old attorney based in Lafayette, La., who asked not to be named, told ABCNews.com that she plans to cut back on her business to get her annual income under the quarter million mark should the Obama tax plan be passed by Congress and become law.

"We are going to try to figure out how to make our income $249,999.00," she said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/Story?id=6975547

:rolleyes:

és:

Mar 13, 2009, 07:14 AM

There are a lot of people who don't understand how progressive taxation works.

:rolleyes:

That is just craziness and lack of understanding of how taxation works. No wonder they think tax is so bad over there if they believe that if they earn a penny more than a certain they will lose thousands in tax on the other money.

arkitect

Mar 13, 2009, 07:18 AM

Maybe the thought of France's tax rates are scary.
If you earn a dollar:
- France --> Takes 44 cents and leaves you 56 cents.
- US --> Takes 28 cents and leaves you 72 cents.

http://raoworld.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/double-facepalm.jpg

**************

There are a lot of people who don't understand how progressive taxation works.

Not that I am a great fan of the breed… but jeesus you'd expect a A 63-year-old attorney to have some grip on the basics of taxation.

Unless this is a joke… probably not.
:o

és:

Mar 13, 2009, 07:53 AM

Of course. I guess I should have explained that.

For example, if you earn €67,550..

€4 gets taxed at 40%.
€42,350 gets taxed at 30%
€13,850 gets taxed at 14%
€5,656 gets taxed at 5.5%
€5,687 gets no tax

That is actually €3 Euros short, but we won't mention that because I can be bothered to redo the maths.

Just to extend on my previous post a little...

On that €67,550 ($87,082) the total tax under the French system would be €14,958.

On $87,082 the total tax under the US system would be $18,509 (€14,326). Under this years newly introduced Obama rate you'd see a tax cut and pay $18,105 (€14,003).

When you consider all the things that you get in the French system, like world class healthcare for all her citizens and much more, I don't think it should be poked fun at.

CalBoy

Mar 13, 2009, 10:07 AM

As I said in my earlier post, I think this is because there just isn't as much French influence in America.

The perception of French being "haute couture" in all aspects certainly does add to American dislike of French culture, but it seems rather ironic when we consider that the US is a nation that very much values its wealthy.
Just to extend on my previous post a little...

On that €67,550 ($87,082) the total tax under the French system would be €14,958.

On $87,082 the total tax under the US system would be $18,509 (€14,326). Under this years newly introduced Obama rate you'd see a tax cut and pay $18,105 (€14,003).

When you consider all the things that you get in the French system, like world class healthcare for all her citizens and much more, I don't think it should be poked fun at.

Does the French system employ deductions?

An American making $87,000 would not be taxed on that amount. After the standard deduction, a possible mortgage deduction, IRA/401k deductions, education deductions, dependents, etc, the average American shaves off a considerable sum off of their taxable income.

Plus, sales taxes in the US are much lower than VAT in France (currently 19.6%), which comprises a large portion of taxation dollars.

I'm not making a value judgement, but just pointing out that there's no such thing as a free lunch; the French government can afford to provide high quality healthcare, transportation, education, etc, because it eats a large portion of the metaphorical pie.

Macky-Mac

Mar 13, 2009, 12:13 PM

That is just craziness and lack of understanding of how taxation works. No wonder they think tax is so bad over there if they believe that if they earn a penny more than a certain they will lose thousands in tax on the other money.

this has a UK counterpart though; when we have threads about healthcare, there are always UK people who insist their healthcare is free.....they simply don't seem to realize they're paying for it with their taxes

Blue Velvet

Mar 13, 2009, 12:17 PM

there are always UK people who insist their healthcare is free.....they simply don't seem to realize they're paying for it with their taxes

The phrase the government use here is 'free at the point of delivery'. This framing has been used by governments both left and right... and in one way, Rush Limbaugh is right: if you got it over there, done properly, it would be the end of the American flavour of conservatism... because it would be pretty damned popular.

Eraserhead

Mar 13, 2009, 12:33 PM

I'm just going to throw this out there:
I don't want the US to become like France because they're wasteful with letters.

Seriously. it seems like every french word ends with two or three silent letters.

And they use a ton of confusing symbols! crème brûlée

What about English's crazy double consonants that sound the same as single consonants (e.g. in disappear) and it's inability to follow sensible pronounciation rules due to it being sourced from many languages (e.g. hi and ski). And what about words like Psycology, night and pharmacy none of which are spelt like they are said.

this has a UK counterpart though; when we have threads about healthcare, there are always UK people who insist their healthcare is free.....they simply don't seem to realize they're paying for it with their taxes

Ironic then that the US government spends twice as much on healthcare per person than the British government (source: the undercover economist)

northy124

Mar 13, 2009, 01:33 PM

The French were by far the nicest people she came across.
:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

They are by far the rudest people I have ever come across personally, looking down on me and my mates as if we were something they stood on, on a hot day:mad::mad:

mactastic

Mar 13, 2009, 02:08 PM

A 63-year-old attorney based in Lafayette, La., who asked not to be named, told ABCNews.com that she plans to cut back on her business to get her annual income under the quarter million mark should the Obama tax plan be passed by Congress and become law.

"We are going to try to figure out how to make our income $249,999.00," she said.
Gee, I wonder why she wouldn't give her name? Probably afraid of losing all her clients. I guess "going Galt" is more difficult than they make it sound...

Unspeaked

Mar 13, 2009, 02:11 PM

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

They are by far the rudest people I have ever come across personally, looking down on me and my mates as if we were something they stood on, on a hot day:mad::mad:

Count me as an American who thinks the French are extremely polite.

I've run into much ruder people visiting different parts of the US than I have any part of Europe (though even that's a rarity).

Queso

Mar 13, 2009, 02:44 PM

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

They are by far the rudest people I have ever come across personally, looking down on me and my mates as if we were something they stood on, on a hot day:mad::mad:
I've always found the French extremely polite....except in Paris where they are the complete opposite.

Macky-Mac

Mar 13, 2009, 03:21 PM

The phrase the government use here is 'free at the point of delivery'. This framing has been used by governments both left and right....

and a very handy phrase it is since it obscures the fact that your taxpayers are paying for it

.... and in one way, Rush Limbaugh is right: if you got it over there, done properly, it would be the end of the American flavour of conservatism... because it would be pretty damned popular.

Rush is right about something? :eek: the very thought makes me feel ill.....where's that free health care when ya need it????

Yes it would be popular if we had it, and I hope Obama moves on it soon while there's a chance of getting something in place.

Blue Velvet

Mar 13, 2009, 03:29 PM

and a very handy phrase it is since it obscures the fact that your taxpayers are paying for it

I don't think there's a single adult of voting age in the UK who doesn't know that the NHS is paid for from taxation. The NHS is a much-complained about but still cherished institution. And we do it on the cheap, unlike France who spend about a 1/3rd more than we do.

However, what they generally don't know what a bargain it is at approx. 7% of GDP as opposed to 17% of GDP for Americans, and everybody is covered... ;)

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

és:

Mar 13, 2009, 03:30 PM

this has a UK counterpart though; when we have threads about healthcare, there are always UK people who insist their healthcare is free.....they simply don't seem to realize they're paying for it with their taxes

Actually, to a lot of people it is entirely free.

Macky-Mac

Mar 13, 2009, 03:37 PM

Actually, to a lot of people it is entirely free.

lots of your people don't pay taxes?

Macky-Mac

Mar 13, 2009, 03:43 PM

....
However, what they generally don't know what a bargain it is at approx. 7% of GDP as opposed to 17% of GDP for Americans, and everybody is covered... ;)

...

unfortunately for us, when we get our universal healthcare in place, and I think that we might actually do it this go around, it's unlikely to lower our costs to anything like yours.........you'll get to brag and brag well into the future.

The best we're apt to get is a system that provides universal coverage and caps the growth of the cost of healthcare

és:

Mar 13, 2009, 03:47 PM

lots of your people don't pay taxes?

In a sense, yes.

No child from 0-16 (and often much older) won't pay tax. Jobseekers don't pay tax. Workers ages 16-65 that earn £6,500 or less. Workers over 65 that earn less than £9.500 (which is many part-time workers of that age). Families on income support. Non-working mothers. There are many more.

Some never contribute anything via tax but are still eligible for healthcare. Why on earth wouldn't they be.

Unspeaked

Mar 13, 2009, 03:52 PM

In a sense, yes.

No child from 0-16 (and often much older) won't pay tax. Jobseekers don't pay tax. Workers ages 16-65 that earn £6,500 or less. Workers over 65 that earn less than £9.500 (which is many part-time workers of that age). Families on income support. Non-working mothers. There are many more.

Some never contribute anything via tax but are still eligible for healthcare. Why on earth wouldn't they be.

That's not too different from here.

I don't know the exact figure, but it's a very small percentage of Americans that actually pay more into the system than they take out of it.

Of course, those are the ones that have plenty to spare...

és:

Mar 13, 2009, 03:56 PM

That's not too different from here.

I don't know the exact figure, but it's a very small percentage of Americans that actually pay more into the system than they take out of it.

Of course, those are the ones that have plenty to spare...

You do have 50+ uninsured though.

You know, I wouldn't moan about the US healthcare system if it did 2 simple things. 1, covered all of the citizens with no exceptions. 2, companies didn't make a huge profit off of not giving healthcare to those that have paid for it and not making huge profits off of the drugs.

Making money off of the sick is... sick.

sushi

Mar 13, 2009, 08:24 PM

You're aware that it isn't actually true though, right?

Sure, most countries have a graduated tax scale.

In my example, I should have been more specific and used the actual US matching rate as well. Sorry for my gloss over.

A 63-year-old attorney based in Lafayette, La., who asked not to be named, told ABCNews.com that she plans to cut back on her business to get her annual income under the quarter million mark should the Obama tax plan be passed by Congress and become law.

"We are going to try to figure out how to make our income $249,999.00," she said.
This makes perfect sense.

Why make income above that amount is they are going to tax me at such a high rate? Some folks would view that as not being worth the effort.

Reminds me of the fellow who dropped a dime in the urinal. He stood there for a while looking at the dime. Then finally dropped a quarter. Then reached down and picked up 35 cents. He said, "for a dime it wasn't worth it, but for 35 cents it was."

Anyhow, some view their money different than others. If I earn 260,000, which is 10,000 over the increased tax level, I may view that what I get to keep out of that 10,000 is not worth the effort. The tax attorney could very well be viewing her family situation that way.

Just to extend on my previous post a little...

On that €67,550 ($87,082) the total tax under the French system would be €14,958.

On $87,082 the total tax under the US system would be $18,509 (€14,326). Under this years newly introduced Obama rate you'd see a tax cut and pay $18,105 (€14,003).
Interesting, but...

Does the French system employ deductions?

An American making $87,000 would not be taxed on that amount. After the standard deduction, a possible mortgage deduction, IRA/401k deductions, education deductions, dependents, etc, the average American shaves off a considerable sum off of their taxable income.
And these factors can make a big difference on where you end up tax wise.

Plus, sales taxes in the US are much lower than VAT in France (currently 19.6%), which comprises a large portion of taxation dollars.

I'm not making a value judgement, but just pointing out that there's no such thing as a free lunch; the French government can afford to provide high quality healthcare, transportation, education, etc, because it eats a large portion of the metaphorical pie.
So true.

Nothing is free. Somewhere along the way everything has to be paid for by someone.

Health care is definitely a complicated issue.

Speaking of income tax rates, this chart (http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=19)is interesting from a historical perspective.

Eraserhead

Mar 13, 2009, 11:22 PM

I've always found the French extremely polite....except in Paris where they are the complete opposite.

Givn that a bunch of French *******s have stayed up all night in a hostel with paper Walls i'm not a big fan right now and am joining the views of the survey who said the French were joint rudest along with the Chinese.

EDIT: i'd be shocked if the French didn't employ deductions.

CalBoy

Mar 13, 2009, 11:50 PM

EDIT: i'd be shocked if the French didn't employ deductions.

As would I, however the intensity and scale of those deductions is at issue here.

On paper the US income tax scale mimics most other developed nations (with the exception of the Swedes of course :p), but in practice it is very far from that scale.

For practical purposes, the US income tax scale is graduated for most earners and levels off at some point (mostly dependent on how many deductions you have and how good your accountant is). Then, as your income continues to rise, your tax rate falls because wealthier individuals are able to make increased use of certain tax laws that primarily pertain to investment/business revenue.

Warren Buffet, for example, came on NBC Nightly News a while back and pointed out how despite his immense wealth and income, his tax rate was only about 16%. Meanwhile his secretary was paying about 27% of her income to taxes.

northy124

Mar 14, 2009, 05:55 AM

The French were joint rudest along with the Chinese.
The Chinese are actually politer than the French, although they do have a habit of scamming people on eBay :P

és:

Mar 14, 2009, 06:03 AM

As would I, however the intensity and scale of those deductions is at issue here.

Short of doing every possible combination, I don't see how it can be compared effectively. I've just done single v single.

CalBoy

Mar 14, 2009, 11:42 AM

Short of doing every possible combination, I don't see how it can be compared effectively. I've just done single v single.

A hypothetical earner can be placed into both tax structures with simplistic deductions like 2 children, a mortgage, and no other outstanding debt.

I personally have no idea how the French file their taxes, so I couldn't help you there, but the American tax forms are readily available.

bartelby

Mar 14, 2009, 11:44 AM

French were joint rudest along with the Chinese.

I find the French a lot less rude than the English to be honest.

remmy

Mar 14, 2009, 12:34 PM

I find the French a lot less rude than the English to be honest.

Do you speak French, maybe you don't know what they're saying :)

In my experience there has been a huge difference between Parisians who hate everyone, and the rest of France who are great, and thus most definitely less rude than the English, or quiet a few places I have visited.

it5five

Mar 14, 2009, 12:44 PM

All this talk about taxes is bothering me. You're sitting here comparing how much the French pay in taxes vs. how much Americans pay. But you're completely ignoring what the French receive in services from their taxes vs. what Americans receive. és mentioned it earlier but none of you low tax proponents seemed to address it.

The French may pay a little more in taxes, but in return they get the best healthcare system in the world, practically free university education and a great country-wide transport system. Meanwhile us lower-tax-paying-people get a joke of a healthcare system and a prohibitively expensive university system.

SactoGuy18

Mar 14, 2009, 12:52 PM

In my experience there has been a huge difference between Parisians who hate everyone, and the rest of France who are great, and thus most definitely less rude than the English, or quiet a few places I have visited.

I have a couple of relatives on my real father's side who live in Switzerland near Basel on the Swiss-French border. He told me a lot of French citizens dislike the people of Paris, mostly because the people of Paris give a wrong impression of what the French really are. Once you get out of Paris, the French people tend to be a lot more friendly on average.

paddy

Mar 14, 2009, 01:14 PM

I find the French a lot less rude than the English to be honest.

Ditto ;)

mactastic

Mar 14, 2009, 02:53 PM

This makes perfect sense.

Why make income above that amount is they are going to tax me at such a high rate? Some folks would view that as not being worth the effort.
So let's see... moving from the current 35% tax rate to the socialist Ronald Reagan's old level of 39% tax rate would mean that you would merely be left with $6,100 instead of $6,500 on that $10,000 earning.

You're saying that paying that extra $400 is the difference between being worth it to pocket $6k, and not being worth it? Seriously? That's all it would take to make you think work isn't worth the effort? You'd do what this attorney is proposing, and pass on an extra $6,000 for every $10,000 above the cutoff?

That's just taking the proverbial "cutting your nose off to spite your face" almost literally...

és:

Mar 14, 2009, 03:32 PM

A hypothetical earner can be placed into both tax structures with simplistic deductions like 2 children, a mortgage, and no other outstanding debt.

Of course, but even then it would only tell part of the story. To give it a fair shot we'd need every combo.

I don't think it would reveal that much, either. The US will have lower amounts of taxation but less... erm... free shiz.

CalBoy

Mar 14, 2009, 04:40 PM

Of course, but even then it would only tell part of the story. To give it a fair shot we'd need every combo.

Which I think reveals the truth of every taxation scheme: no matter how it is organized, it will always benefit someone over someone else.

European tax schemes tend to benefit the middle and working classes far more than the US tax schedule, which heavily favors anyone who earns more of their money from investments or other private enterprise, which quelle surprise, is the wealthier members of society.

I don't think it would reveal that much, either. The US will have lower amounts of taxation but less... erm... free shiz.

Well there's the thing really: it's not free. It's paid for at some stage by the people themselves. Now I'm no defender of US healthcare or social services, but it's a tad dishonest to describe the French social services scheme as "free."

In fact, the fact that it isn't free is one of the key reasons the French (and German) models of healthcare have been so successful. In the US, healthcare (and welfare) provided by the government is seen as a "gift" that the middle class provides to the poor. Over time this has made the entire structure more of a patch work system because policy makers make cuts to programs like SCHIP and Medicaid without any real voter revolt. In contrast, French and German workers wouldn't tolerate any cuts to their services because the vast majority of voters are invested into the system.

és:

Mar 14, 2009, 04:46 PM

Well there's the thing really: it's not free.

Firstly, as has been said in many threads on this forum, it is free at the point of service. Secondly, it is entirely free for many, many people.

Whilst the social service offered are not provided for free, but through taxation (which everybody knows and 'dishonest' is certainly a strong word and factually incorrect in quite a few cases), they are a lot cheeper, a lot better value and a lot more effective and efficient.

CalBoy

Mar 14, 2009, 04:59 PM

Firstly, as has been said in many threads on this forum, it is free at the point of service.

There are many things in life that are free at the point of service; it doesn't actually make them any more free. ;)

Secondly, it is entirely free for many, many people.

Unless those people consume absolutely no products or services that are taxed, then probably not. We all pay taxes, even if we are poor.

Granted the poor pay a smaller share, but they still pay for their access to healthcare by being a part of the system.

And, many Americans also have access to free or nearly free healthcare depending on their income.

Whilst the social service offered are not provided for free, but through taxation (which everybody knows and 'dishonest' is certainly a strong word and factually incorrect in quite a few cases), they are a lot cheeper, a lot better value and a lot more effective and efficient.

Cheapness, value, effectiveness, and efficiency are all difficult to measure for social services other than medicine or pensions.

Moreover, not every service provided through the state has always been the best.

és:

Mar 14, 2009, 05:12 PM

Unless those people consume absolutely no products or services that are taxed, then probably not. We all pay taxes, even if we are poor.

Now consider where the money comes from. When the money comes from the tax payer, the person paying is getting it for free. Simple really.

If the problem is that I called it free, I'm certainly not trying to pull the wool over anybodies eyes. One way or another it is paid for and everybody knows that.

Cheapness, value, effectiveness, and efficiency are all difficult to measure for social services other than medicine or pensions

It's very easy to measure in areas like healthcare though, isn't it. That is the major thing here, surely. World class medical care in the US doesn't come that cheaply and 50m+ are uninsured.

Lets cut trough all the crap here and why don't you tell me what you're actually objecting to. What I objected to was that France 44% v US 28%. Clearly nonsense. Then it was suggested about deductibles, which both countries have fairly complex and varies systems for and, at least for the purpose of this discussion, is far too much work to gain a full comparison.

So what is it that you've got a problem with, then we can focus on that instead of beating around the bush (or throwing a shoe at it... ;) )

CalBoy

Mar 14, 2009, 05:18 PM

Lets cut trough all the crap here and why don't you tell me what you're actually objecting to. What I objected to was that France 44% v US 28%. Clearly nonsense. Then it was suggested about deductibles, which both countries have fairly complex and varies systems for and, at least for the purpose of this discussion, is far too much work to gain a full comparison.

So what is it that you've got a problem with, then we can focus on that instead of beating around the bush (or throwing a shoe at it... ;) )

I assumed that part of the discussion was dealt with. The US pays less in taxes, and its citizens receive less in social services.

My only contention is that there's no such thing as a free lunch. I'll judge the merits of programs and services on their own, and if you want to discuss that, I'm all ears (or eyes as it were).

Ugg

Mar 14, 2009, 05:27 PM

And, many Americans also have access to free or nearly free healthcare depending on their income.

That is probably the worst of all the generalizations you've made so far.

Yes, anyone can go to the emergency room for a broken leg or runny nose but when it comes to having a doctor who is able to take a holistic look at your health, forget about it. Much less the chance to have effective treatment for any debilitating illness.

Having access to healthcare and having effective access to healthcare along with effective treatment are two entirely different things.

Germany has two levels of treatment: Public and Private or if you will, the BMW level and the Mercedes level.

The US also has two levels of treatment, a broken down Ford Edsel and a Lamborghini.

és:

Mar 14, 2009, 05:28 PM

My only contention is that there's no such thing as a free lunch.

There really is, but we're really going off track with that.

. I'll judge the merits of programs and services on their own, and if you want to discuss that, I'm all ears

Well, France is rates as one of the best healthcare systems in the world and has all of the citizens covered. To do this they spend a shiz load less per person than the US do for a fairly mediocre service.

My main points is this that French tax + healthcare (and other social stuff like transportation, welfare and education) cheaper and better than US tax + healthcare (and other social stuff like transportation, welfare and education). So because of that I don't think they should be mocked.

By the way, don't let any of the French know that this Brit is sticking up for them. We'd all die of embarrassment.

CalBoy

Mar 14, 2009, 05:49 PM

That is probably the worst of all the generalizations you've made so far.

Medicaid, if you qualify for it, allows you to have access to a variety of healthcare services at little or no cost to the patient (depending on the state of course, but California is known to be generous in some regards).

The only trouble is that it's difficult to qualify for it.

I didn't have emergency rooms in mind at all.

There really is, but we're really going off track with that.

Well it's a real sticking point for me.

You can't make services magically appear. Someone is going to have to pay for them at some point. In a government-sponsored program, it's going to be the taxpayers.

Well, France is rates as one of the best healthcare systems in the world and has all of the citizens covered. To do this they spend a shiz load less per person than the US do for a fairly mediocre service.

One point here: US healthcare is horrible for those who are underinsured, uninsured, or barely able to afford their insurance, but the services provided to those who can afford it is not mediocre. Ugg's comparison of a pathetic Ford versus a luxury Lamborghini is relatively apt.

What's more, I've never experienced "mediocre" healthcare in my life, and I'm not driving a Lamborghini. However, I have yet to be in the "underinsured" or "uninsured" categories. The people in those categories have less access to healthcare, and when they do receive care, it is more likely to be in emergency rooms, which adds tremendously to the cost.

My main points is this that French tax + healthcare (and other social stuff like transportation, welfare and education) cheaper and better than US tax + healthcare (and other social stuff like transportation, welfare and education).

See, this is where the issue becomes more difficult to measure well. In many cases the French save money (like in education or transportation) because they are a more densely populated nation.

America's history with racism has produced negative outcomes on both the education front and transportation front, which would require far more spending to balance out than you would imagine.

Now that's no defense of what we do in America, but I want it to be clear that we aren't comparing apples to apples. America has a unique past that doesn't make a comparison on all fronts fair or realistic.

So because of that I don't think they should be mocked.

If you go back into this thread, you'll see I don't support the mocking of the French either. ;)

Silencio

Mar 14, 2009, 06:00 PM

So let's see... moving from the current 35% tax rate to the socialist Ronald Reagan's old level of 39% tax rate would mean that you would merely be left with $6,100 instead of $6,500 on that $10,000 earning.

You're saying that paying that extra $400 is the difference between being worth it to pocket $6k, and not being worth it? Seriously? That's all it would take to make you think work isn't worth the effort? You'd do what this attorney is proposing, and pass on an extra $6,000 for every $10,000 above the cutoff?

That's just taking the proverbial "cutting your nose off to spite your face" almost literally...

Pretty amazing, the Republicans' ability to get some people to think the world is coming to an end over a 4% rise in the nominal tax rate -- which is more technically an expiration of a previously-issued tax discount. But they've convinced some people to hate government and taxes so much that they would engage in the self-defeating behavior as described above.

They should just admit to the truth and re-design their logo:

162362

Counterfit

Mar 15, 2009, 12:25 AM

Pretty amazing, the Republicans' ability to get some people to think the world is coming to an end over a 4% rise in the nominal tax rate -- which is more technically an expiration of a previously-issued tax discount. But they've convinced some people to hate government and taxes so much that they would engage in the self-defeating behavior as described above.

They should just admit to the truth and re-design their logo:

162362

"Hey Lois, look! The two symbols of the Republican party: an elephant and a big fat white guy who's threatened by change."

yg17

Mar 15, 2009, 01:18 AM

"Hey Lois, look! The two symbols of the Republican party: an elephant and a big fat white guy who's threatened by change."

The Republican Party never used to be like that, hell, they probably weren't even that bad when that Family Guy episode originally aired. It's amazing how much they've transformed themselves to fit that quote to a T

és:

Mar 15, 2009, 03:14 AM

Well it's a real sticking point for me.

Well, with respect, you'll have to stay stuck. It is a fact.

Someone is going to have to pay for them at some point.

Yes. Like I said, it is entirely free for a lot of people.

One point here: US healthcare is horrible for those who are underinsured, uninsured, or barely able to afford their insurance, but the services provided to those who can afford it is not mediocre.

Your healthcare is ranked as one of the lowest in the developed industrialised world. Out of all the points that are argued I didn't expect that to be the one.

Now that's no defense of what we do in America, but I want it to be clear that we aren't comparing apples to apples.

Exactly. We're seeing who's fruit is best.

CalBoy

Mar 15, 2009, 12:02 PM

Well, with respect, you'll have to stay stuck. It is a fact.

That there's such a thing as a free lunch? I very much doubt it, and I invite you to prove it.

Yes. Like I said, it is entirely free for a lot of people.

Again, technically not, but I'll leave that aside. While it is a nice attribute to be sure, but it shouldn't be our basis for determining which healthcare system is necessarily better, because the more people who are not paying anything, the more people there are who are subsidizing them. It's a zero-sum game in payment terms (though not in rewards terms, which is why I support universal insurance programs).

Your healthcare is ranked as one of the lowest in the developed industrialised world.

On an aggregate scale, yes. However, there is a dichotomy with healthcare in the US (as there is with most things). On the one hand you have poor service or poor access for many, and exceptionally good access and service for others. The middle ground of 'good and solid' healthcare has disappeared over 40 years.

Out of all the points that are argued I didn't expect that to be the one.

I'm trying to emphasize that you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are many positive aspects of American healthcare. Any reforms to our system need to find a way to incorporate those while fixing the downsides.

Exactly. We're seeing who's fruit is best.

The problem is, not every system works for every nation. The French have a great healthcare system because it works for the French. They've found a social services scheme that address the problems of their nation. That doesn't mean that it will always work in all other cases.

Now this isn't to say that they're aren't strengths in the French plan that the US can apply, because there are. However, you can't pluck the entire French plan and apply it to the US and expect it to work the same way.

és:

Mar 15, 2009, 12:13 PM

That there's such a thing as a free lunch? I very much doubt it, and I invite you to prove it.

I'm backing up my claim that to a lot of people it is entirely free. The get their benefit and they are still eligible for unlimited healthcare. You suggested that they pay for it through purchase tax. They don't because it is already tax payers money. It really is simple, so this comment is becoming annoying...

Again, technically not, but I'll leave that aside.

You're the one that said it was a sticking point. I've shown you that it is entirely free for some people.

it shouldn't be our basis for determining which healthcare system is necessarily better

Ask 50+m that are not insured which is better. Ask the World Health Organization that ranked France as number 1 and the USA just above Cuba in 38th.

On an aggregate scale, yes. However, there is a dichotomy with healthcare in the US (as there is with most things). On the one hand you have poor service or poor access for many, and exceptionally good access and service for others. The middle ground of 'good and solid' healthcare has disappeared over 40 years.

To rank an entire healthcare system of a country you have to rank all of it. Come on, why are you sticking your feet in about these obvious and simple things.

The problem is, not every system works for every nation.

Well, that is probably true. However, one thing is sure: the US system is, at best, inefficient and inconsistent. At worst it leaves 50m+ uninsured.

The French have a great healthcare system because it works for the French. They've found a social services scheme that address the problems of their nation. That doesn't meant that it will always work in all other cases.

It does work in many cases though, doesn't it? And, in the context of this thread, it doesn't really matter how it would work in other cases.

Now this isn't to say that they're aren't strengths in the French plan that the US can apply, because there are. However, you can't pluck the entire French plan and apply it to the US and expect it to work the same way.

I don't think anybody is suggesting that. We're talking, in the context of this thread at least, about it being ridiculed by Americans/politicians.

Look, the reason I'm hitting out at the US healthcare system is because it could be so good and it should be the best. It isn't and it badly fails so many of your citizens. Surely no American can be proud that so many (almost the entire population of GB according to some figures that I've seen) are uninsured and many more underinsured. Surely nobody can be proud of companies making billions of dollars in profits whilst families crumble under the financial pressure of prescriptions.

We should be talking about the brilliance of American doctors, not the failing of the system.

CalBoy

Mar 15, 2009, 12:57 PM

I'm backing up my claim that to a lot of people it is entirely free. The get their benefit and they are still eligible for unlimited healthcare. You suggested that they pay for it through purchase tax. They don't because it is already tax payers money. It really is simple, so this comment is becoming annoying...

What do you mean with the phrase "it is already tax payers' money?" If a person makes a purchase on which they pay VAT, then they are in fact a part of the taxpayer pool which goes towards healthcare and other social services, ergo, they have in fact payed into the system.

Furthermore, the metaphor of "no such thing as a free lunch" extends beyond the monetary aspects. If you truly don't pay into something, then you also cede certain rights and privileges. French citizens haven't ceded these rights, so they are in fact payers into the system. Contrast that with American programs like Medicaid, where the recipients do not pay into the fund with tax dollars on a regular basis. There, they face uncertainty because the program can be cut at any time and they have no right to "demand" service. Hence their "free lunch" isn't so free after all.

It does work in many cases though, doesn't it? And, in the context of this thread, it doesn't really matter how it would work in other cases.

On the contrary, it matters quite a lot for this thread.

The thread's central question is why the French and France are feared and ridiculed in the US. Whether or not one critical aspect of France (its social services-especially healthcare) would work here is very important to understanding why there is FUD concerning the French.

I'm not a French basher, but I think it's important to understand that the French healthcare system probably wouldn't be the best fit for the US.

Now the German healthcare model, that's a different story...

és:

Mar 15, 2009, 01:09 PM

What do you mean with the phrase "it is already tax payers' money?"

Where do you think benefits come from?

If a person makes a purchase on which they pay VAT, then they are in fact a part of the taxpayer pool which goes towards healthcare and other social services, ergo, they have in fact payed into the system.

That would work if the money being spent wasn't already tax payers money. I can't go over this again, calboy.

If you truly don't pay into something, then you also cede certain rights and privileges.

Like... (only in the case of what I've said - that it is entirely free for some people)

Why can't you get this. It really is the most simple thing. We've posted about it ten times. I can't keep doing it.

People on benefits that are paid from the government (JSA, incapacity, disability etc etc) are getting it for free. The money is already tax payers money.

On the contrary, it matters quite a lot for this thread.

OK then. It does work in nearly all of the best ranked healthcare systems in the world. Your point?

I don't believe that to be true, but that is something neither of us

I think it's important to understand that the French healthcare system probably wouldn't be the best fit for the US.

Huh? Where did that come from. I'm sorry, but for somebody to understand that it would have to be remotely true and not just conjecture.

There were some very, very important points that you didn't bother covering. Why is that?

Peace

Mar 15, 2009, 01:34 PM

Famed cartoonist Robert Crumb traded an old drawing book for a chateau in France and moved there. I only wish I could have done that.

és:

Mar 15, 2009, 01:37 PM

Famed cartoonist Robert Crumb traded an old drawing book for a chateau in France and moved there. I only wish I could have done that.

Not quite a free lunch but pretty good value ;)

Peace

Mar 15, 2009, 01:39 PM

Not quite a free lunch but pretty good value ;)

[off topic]

Please don't get me started with Northern Ireland.:)

[/off topic]

CalBoy

Mar 15, 2009, 01:44 PM

Where do you think benefits come from?

Which is precisely my point. The benefits are paid for by everyone, so no one is really getting a "free ride" if you will.

That would work if the money being spent wasn't already tax payers money.
This statement makes no sense.

Government sponsored healthcare is tax payer money. Tax payer money comes from any number of sources, and if you are a tax payer in any of those areas, then you are not getting anything for "free." You have in fact paid for it.

Like... (only in the case of what I've said - that it is entirely free for some people)

No, it isn't. They receive more in benefits than they pay in perhaps, but that doesn't make it "free." You can't discuss tax and spend programs in that light because it is a false reality.

People on benefits that are paid from the government (JSA, incapacity, disability etc etc) are getting it for free. The money is already tax payers money.

Which they have paid into in the past, which means they are entitled to the benefits, which is not "free."

Free means that there was no condition to your receipt of the service/item/money. All government programs violate that notion because there are conditionals to you getting the benefit.

OK then. It does work in nearly all of the best ranked healthcare systems in the world. Your point?

The French system works in all of the best ranked healthcare systems?

Or universal coverage works in all of the best ranked healthcare systems?

Those are two very different points, because there are many flavors of universal coverage, which is what I've been trying to emphasize.

Huh? Where did that come from. I'm sorry, but for somebody to understand that it would have to be remotely true and not just conjecture.

Having studied this exact topic in depth, I know it isn't conjecture.

Reviewing all of the healthcare models in current use, the best hope for American healthcare is the German model with some minor modifications.

There were some very, very important points that you didn't bother covering. Why is that?

You mean the emotional appeals of "50+ million uninsured" etc?

I don't dispute those things, so I saw no reason to discuss them any further.

Peterkro

Mar 15, 2009, 01:46 PM

The preferred name is the north of Ireland.:)

Queso

Mar 15, 2009, 01:54 PM

The preferred name is the north of Ireland.:)
I always refer to it as Ulster. Not technically correct because Northern Ireland and Ulster don't have the exact same boundaries, but whether you speak to Republicans or Unionists they are happy using that term. At least in my experience.

Anyways........</offtopic>

it5five

Mar 15, 2009, 02:04 PM

You can't make services magically appear. Someone is going to have to pay for them at some point. In a government-sponsored program, it's going to be the taxpayers.

So what? We all know this. I don't understand what you're trying to argue. Are you arguing against using the word "free" to describe tax-payer services (even though people have come out and clarified that as "free at point of service"). Are you arguing against higher taxes? Did I miss something earlier in the thread that led me to be this confused about your argument?

CalBoy

Mar 15, 2009, 02:14 PM

So what? We all know this. I don't understand what you're trying to argue. Are you arguing against using the word "free" to describe tax-payer services

Yes. Describing them as such is bad if we want people to feel invested in the services. It is one of the critical reasons why Medicaid and welfare programs in the US has failed; people perceive them as "free" and that has led to voter revolt.

(even though people have come out and clarified that as "free at point of service").

It doesn't really matter if it is free at point of service. Even if a universal program asks for $5 copays, it could be a very good healthcare system. What matters is that it doesn't allow people to die because of money, and it doesn't allow for illness to cause bankruptcy.

Are you arguing against higher taxes? Did I miss something earlier in the thread that led me to be this confused about your argument?

No, I'm not arguing against higher taxes. I'm not even arguing against universal coverage.

és:

Mar 15, 2009, 02:14 PM

Which is precisely my point. The benefits are paid for by everyone, so no one is really getting a "free ride" if you will.

FOR FKXS SAKE! It is for the people using it!!! Which Is what I've been telling you. Why can't you get it? I'll be ignoring any more comments about this subject.

This statement makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense, you just can't seem to get it.

and if you are a tax payer

You might want to keep reading that bit. Especially the 'if' part. Something might twig.

No, it isn't. They receive more in benefits than they pay in perhaps, but that doesn't make it "free." You can't discuss tax and spend programs in that light because it is a false reality.

I'm beginning to think you're being deliberately obtuse.

Which they have paid into in the past

Thanks for that little BS 'fact'.

Free means

Free means that oranges are blue. See, we can all redine things to mean something different to what they mean. It doesn't really matter though, does it.

Free means ''without cost or payment''. There are, as I continue to state, many people for which there is no cost or payment, there never has been cost or payment and there will never be any cost or payment.

The French system works in all of the best ranked healthcare systems?

Or universal coverage works in all of the best ranked healthcare systems?

'all'. I see what you tried to do there. :rolleyes:

Let me expand on what I said in that quote, before we get held back by meaningless pedantic chatter for 8 pages.

The system that the French use does, in some form or another, ''work in nearly all of the best ranked healthcare systems in the world''.

Those are two very different points, because there are many flavors of universal coverage, which is what I've been trying to emphasize.

Having studied this exact topic in depth

You're not the only one. It wasn't just study, either. 'Probably wouldn't be', that is near irrefutable, isn't it.

Reviewing all of the healthcare models in current use, the best hope for American healthcare is the German model with some minor modifications.

Thanks for another irrefutable fact but that really has nothing to do with what I've said.

You mean the emotional appeals of "50+ million uninsured" etc?

Disgusting. To dismiss 50m+ uninsured and many more underinsured, a horrifically inefficient system, billions and billions made in profit from the people that are being bankrupt to pay for medicine and a system that is badly failing the citizens as just 'emotion appeals' is, for want of a better word, sick.

Whether you agree with what I've said or not, to flippantly call them that is not great.

CalBoy

Mar 15, 2009, 02:39 PM

Free means ''without cost or payment''. There are, as I continue to state, many people for which there is no cost or payment, there never has been cost or payment and there will never be any cost or payment.

That simply isn't the case with medicine. The French (and Germans) have in fact designed their systems to make it clear to the people that they are paying into the healthcare system, which is why it is so effective.

All effective social insurance programs make it clear to the taxpayer (and eventual beneficiary) that the program is as good as the taxpayer is willing to fund it. The people are invested in those systems because they are aware of what they've paid into it.

It might seem contradictory to your ideal of "free" service, but it is the reality of the system. What's more, it's necessary to make people feel that they've paid for the service in order for it to be successful.

'Probably wouldn't be', that is near irrefutable, isn't it.

In political science, there is no certainty. "Probably wouldn't be" is the gold standard.

Disgusting. To dismiss 50m+ uninsured

I haven't dismissed them.

I'm not, however, going to keep harping on those numbers because they don't actually advance the debate any further.

If you want to give detailed information as to why those millions are uninsured, how to solve the problem, etc, then do so.

For now they don't really fit into a discussion about French social policy or how to fix American healthcare (unless you can prescribe why those 50 million are uninsured, which is valuable information).

és:

Mar 15, 2009, 02:57 PM

That simply isn't the case with medicine.

Sorry, I had to stop there. I can't keep banging my head against that wall for you just to quote a fraction of my entire post.

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/5507/smilie.gif

Ugg

Mar 15, 2009, 03:40 PM

calboy, I have to agree with others in that your constant rebuttals have not in the least bit clarified your viewpoint on health insurance in the US. they seem to merely be textbook responses with little or no personal input.

What is your opinion? What do you think would work best and why?

CalBoy

Mar 15, 2009, 03:57 PM

What is your opinion? What do you think would work best and why?

Having studied social insurance and protection for 3 consecutive semesters, I have a very complicated and mixed view on the subject.

For starters, healthcare in the US clearly isn't working. That isn't saying much, as it's obvious to the deaf and blind.

The solution to healthcare in the US that seems most promising is a government-sponsored insurance program that leaves doctors in the private sector. This insurance should be funded as an add-on to FICA, and with a secondary tax on employers who don't supply complete health insurance to workers (complete coverage needs to be measured in the way Germany measures its healthcare insurance).

All insurance will also have to be mandated by law to be nonprofit and mutual insurers, and they will have to compete with the government's insurance plan as well.

If you go with a nonprofit mutual insurer, the government pays out a flat rate to all citizens and you have to cover the rest yourself (which lets you go "premium" if you want). This coverage does not relate to employment status, so even if you are unemployed, the government must continue to provide the service.

Beyond that, Medicaid and Medicare will both be folded into this government plan. There's no need for redundancy if everyone is covered. There will also be statutory maximums on copays and other surcharges.

The most important part, however, is that everyone is taxed on their income, and everyone is treated equally under the program. Make it clear to the poor person, the middle class person, and the wealthy person, that they are all equal under the plan, and that they all have equal access to care. It must be made clear to the voters that they are the owners of the plan, and that the plan is for their use. Do that, and it won't ever face repeal.