Friday News Roundup - Hour 2
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-05-27/friday-news-roundup-hour-2
The international hour of the Friday News Roundup. President Obama wrapped up a tour of Europe. He made stops in Ireland, Britain and France, where he attended the G-8 summit. The G-8 nations pledged billions of dollars in aid to budding Arab democracies. Israel's prime minister gave little ground in a speech to the U.S. Congress. He called on Palestinian leaders to accept a Jewish state. Egypt said former President Mubarak would face trial in connection with the deaths of protesters And Serbia captured Europe’s most-wanted war criminal, Ratko Mladich. A panel of journalists joins Diane for analysis of the week's top international news stories.
Guests
James Kitfield
senior correspondent, The National Journal
Nadia Bilbassy
senior U.S. correspondent, MBC TV -- Middle East Broadcast Centre.
Moises Naim
chief international columnist, El Pais.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Why can't folks see the elephant in the living room when it comes to health care cost. I refer to the parts that insurance companies and for profit medical care for profit play.
It seems to me that we have to learn quite a big lesson from all other industrialized nations.
The international news I want to see sometime soon is that the United States of America is not paying overseas governments for work they do against our best interests anymore in order to take care of our own citizens.
I hear about 'entitlements' and how our working poor do not deserve assistance - when do we stop giving 'entitlements' to Israel, Pakistan, and fifty or more other countries while those nations are supporting anti-american violence?
So-called entitlements at least keep the money here in our country, spent on much needed items bought here in our own neighborhoods.
Sending 'foreign aid" sends billions of federal reserve notes outside the country and in many cases is used to support our enemies - buying bullets to be used against our own armed forces.
Keep the money here - let us spend it here.
Second, thrilled though I am by the health care reforms in Vermont, myriad systems in Europe and especially in Canada, a superb model which provides better health care for all than does the American system, provide tremendous evidence of the value of health care from a single, national, provider. In the American system, the principle at work seems to be the creating profit for the few from the ill health of the many, and a brutal condemnation to die from treatable chronic conditions or relatively simple-to-remedy illnesses for those unable purchase health insurance.
Finally, perhaps put this debate in a wider context, too: discussions about health care and the vilification of those who struggle to pay for it, or even who use it (or social security, also condemned as an "entitlement"), need to be integrated into a discussion of the ever-growing disparities between the very rich in the United States and all the rest of us, even very comfortable middle-class on down. The potential for social mobility in several European countries is now higher than that in the United States, despite our much-vaunted egalitarian perspectives.
To take one example, the attaching of health care to jobs limits grievously labor mobility, forces working individuals to hang onto outdated jobs because they are "covered" instead of moving forward into the future, and drives younger workers into the not necessarily innovative sectors of the economy in search of benefits for themselves and their future families, instead of following their passions toward the "next new thing." One can always cite counter individual examples: however the individual does not trump the experience of the majority.
I am deeply depressed by the consistent use of the word entitlements to discuss medicare and medicaid, and other forms of support to those in need in our society: surely, in any civilized society the provision of health care is a basic human right, not an entitlement?
When we speak about entitlements, shouldn't we also be discussing those entitlements issued at will, without justification, to the corporate sector & to the rich? These too are entitlements, not a quid pro quo for the creation of jobs, as so often claimed. Instead they finance the export of jobs, and the ever diminishing share of the fruits of their labor earned by ordinary Americans.
Please, let's be fair and use the word entitlements, an example of how choice of language shapes a political debate for favor those in power (and thus those with money), every where it belongs, and not save it simply to discredit services that help those least able to help themselves.
Foreign aid IS an entitlement - assistance for american citizens is NOT, we earn these items, such as social security and medicare.
Foreign governments given entitlements costs so many billions of federal reserve notes there is not enough for our paid-for-working-all-our-lives benefits.
Let's call a cow a cow - foreign aid is entitlements that need to be stopped.
But, we have wimps limply handing out money we do not have to bring favor from anti-american governments in a brash attempt to buy friendship.
Whatever happened to Iraq paying for the war that 'freed' them with Iraqi oil? More bush lies?
First, I was offended to see the applause accorded to Mr Netanyahu, in our congress. Perhaps the Democrats have forgotten that the demographic of the country is changing and not all of us are willing to support Israel at every turn. They might keep that in mind during the next election and when another Israeli politician comes to town.
Secondly, Re the Medicare/Ryan proposal, perhaps ,if the Republicans are willing to put forth some tax increases for the corporations, the seniors may be willing to reduce some benefits.
It is, however, a shame that politicians in a country as rich as ours, consider healthcare to be an entitlement. Most wealthy"civilized" nations ( and some not so wealthy) are able to provide healthcare(and education) to their citizens, free of charge. Healthy, well educated citizens are a boon to any country. That being said, I also see the cost of healthcare rising due to the lack of initiative on the part of the citizens to take care of their health(via exercise, diet, etc), in addition to unmitigated greed on the part of the healthcare industry.
Lastly, For all our education, it seems incredible that we are willing to consider the likes of Mr Trump, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann to be credible possibilities for the highest office in the nation. Stop wasting our time on such nonsensical candiates.
Diane, I appreciate hearing the points of view and opinions of different journalists around the world, even if they conflict with my own views.
I was nevertheless surprised that you didn't correct Nadia's anti-semitic comments about Obama and his Jewish donors, when she claimed that he is raising peace negotiations now because Obama is trying to get re-elected and we know where the money comes from.
So I ask you Diane,
Is Nadia a journalist/reporter/pundit or a participant and activist? Because she sure sounded like a participant and activist to me.
Mountainwomon on May 27, 2011 @ 11:17 am wrote: "when do we stop giving 'entitlements' to Israel, Pakistan, and fifty or more other countries while those nations are supporting anti-american violence?"
Kindly tell me what "anti-american violence" Israel supports, when, and how?
Oh, and you do realize the entire foreign aid amounts to less than 3% of the budget!
And to all those discussing "entitlements": while I appreciate your Comments, don't they belong on the webpage for the previous hour?
While you might be offended, Sathi, not everyone is, including myself. I was offended by the woman from Gaza who forgot to mention the missiles and murder commited by Hamas while in Gaza, or the thousands of Arabs who were massed on Israel's borders in 1967 - they were the cause of the war that set the new borders, and they are still there, just as anxious today as they were in '67 to wipe Israel off the map. Obama's apparent naivety regarding this astounds me.
Generally, I find this and most NPR programmig to be so lopsided that the only reason I listen is to try to understand what the left is currently using to keep people such as yourself so blindly following the lead of people like Obama. the words "fair and balanced" have no context here.
"Howard wtfib wrote:
Why can't folks see the elephant in the living room when it comes to health care cost. I refer to the parts that insurance companies and for profit medical care for profit play.
It seems to me that we have to learn quite a big lesson from all other industrialized nations."
Howard:
I rather have private health insurance. Anything the government gets their hands on they make worse.
Look at Canada. For anything other than an emergency, you have to wait months to get treatment. UK is in bad shape as well. Here at home we have Medicare that is going broke and many doctors do not take medicare patients.
Profits for Private Health Insurance companies are something in the area of 6%. Lets keep things the way they are but improve private insurance coverage.
"Howard wtfib wrote:
Why can't folks see the elephant in the living room when it comes to health care cost. I refer to the parts that insurance companies and for profit medical care for profit play.
It seems to me that we have to learn quite a big lesson from all other industrialized nations."
Howard:
I rather have private health insurance. Anything the government gets their hands on they make worse.
Look at Canada. For anything other than an emergency, you have to wait months to get treatment. UK is in bad shape as well. Here at home we have Medicare that is going broke and many doctors do not take medicare patients.
Profits for Private Health Insurance companies are something in the area of 6%. Lets keep things the way they are but improve private insurance coverage.
Neocons in the Bush administration, suspected to represent Likud's agenda, pushed for
Iraq war, as per PNAC's plan to "Secure the Realm". Thousands of Americans have died,
trillions of dollars have been spent, an ongoing nightmare. Tell me that you don't think
that Israeli interests promoted that fiasco?
Less than 3% of the budget would provide universal health care for all Americans,
something the Israelis enjoy at the annual expense of US taxpayers $3 BILLION !
Way past time to cut the State of Israel off the American Taxpayer support.
A_conservative_... wrote on May 27, 2011 @ 4:52 pm: “Obama's apparent naivety regarding this astounds me. . . . the words ‘fair and balanced’ have no context here.”
While I agree with much of the first paragraph of your Comment, I don’t agree with its last sentence, or your other paragraph.
There is nothing “naive” about Obama’s proposal, and in fact it has been the position of the U.S. for decades. Indeed, Netanyahu himself said much the same thing, though in a different way.
There is a big difference between saying the ‘67 borders (with adjustments) are the starting point of negotiations, and saying we should blindly trust “the Arabs” as you call them. (The correct term is “Palestinians”.) I don’t recall Obama saying he welcomed Hamas as a “partner for peace”, for example. And I certainly don’t trust those guys either.
But your position can be called naive. In ‘67 there were “thousands of Arabs who were massed on Israel's borders. . . , and they are still there, just as anxious today as they were in '67 to wipe Israel off the map”? Even assuming your characterization of the Palestinian’s desires is correct (which I dispute, they don’t all want Israel’s destruction), you are forgetting something. There are many more “Arabs” there now, only now they are inside Israel (unless the West Bank and Gaza become a separate state of Palestine). So, what would you do with them?
I know there is a minority in Israel (thankfully a very small one) who says the Palestinians should all be “assisted” into moving to Jordan, and make that the Palestinian state. If you subscribe to this crackpot view, then all I can say is: there’s a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you - cheap!
As for being ‘fair and balanced’, I’d say that term better describes NPR than the network which hypocritically employs the slogan - Fox, the propaganda arm of the GOP!
meangreen on May 27, 2011 @ 8:07 pm wrote: “Anything the government gets their hands on they make worse.”
Oh, I take it, then, you want nothing to do with the government created roads we travel on (especially the Interstate Highway system), much less any products that travel on them, or businesses that use them?
I suppose you never use commercial airlines, with all their government airports and traffic controllers?
I suppose you prefer to have your house burn down, rather than use the government Fire Department?
I guess if you’re ever robbed, or threatened with murder, the last thing you’ll do is dial 911 for the government police?
By the way, since you are so opposed to government interference with health care, how do you feel about the government laws that restrict abortion?
And I won’t even bother asking if, when you’re old enough, you will refuse the government provided Social Security and Medicare benefits.
Your statement is what’s known as mindless ideology on parade.
P.S. - As far as keeping things “the way they are”, but improving “private insurance coverage”, you do realize that’s exactly what the Patient Protection Act sets out to do?
adkelt on May 27, 2011 @ 10:05 pm wrote: “Neocons in the Bush administration, suspected to represent Likud's agenda, pushed for Iraq war. . . . Less than 3% of the budget would provide universal health care for all Americans. . .”
Mindless ideology and paranoid delusions from the (so-called) left are no more a substitute for sound public policy than their counterpart from the (so-called) right. Neither are made up numbers that are contrary to fact.
In 2008 the total Budget Outlays (expenditures) were $2,931,222,000,000. Three percent of that would equal $87,936,660,000. The total heath care expenditures for 2008 (including both Medicare and Medicaid) was $718,642,000,000, so that leaves a $630,705,340,000 “gap” (87% still to be paid for). And these programs don’t cover everyone! Care to guess the cost of “universal health care for all Americans” (even assuming the Republicans would allow it)?
Oh, by the way, my source is The World Almanac for 2010, page 62.
Etaoin
""y the way, since you are so opposed to government interference with health care, how do you feel about the government laws that restrict abortion?
And I won’t even bother asking if, when you’re old enough, you will refuse the government provided Social Security and Medicare benefits.
Your statement is what’s known as mindless ideology on parade.
P.S. - As far as keeping things “the way they are”, but improving “private insurance coverage”, you do realize that’s exactly what the Patient Protection Act sets out to do"
Etaoin:
Medicare and Medicaid is broke. What makes you think that Obama's proposal to move 500 billion from Medicaid to Obamacare is not a CUT?
It is a cut. Why do you think that this great government programs that you think is so great will be in the red by 2017, three years earliers than predicted. That many doctors refuse to treat Medicare and Medicaid patients. Are you going to create another law to force doctors to take Medicare and Medicaid patients?
The Patient Protection Act has other objectives as well. It will require insurance to cover additional services that will force private health insurers or companies to stop covering because the expense will be so great.
That why Obama has stated many times in the past his objectives is a one payer system.
I am 54 years old and do not not expect SS to be there when I retire or worth very little. SS has a projected 45 Billion dollar deficit this year, not to mention that paper money is being created causing inflation will result in my benefits being worth less.
THANKS TO INEPTNESS OF BIG GOVERNMENT
In addition Etaoin where does the Patient Protection Act state private health accounts or insurance companies competing across state lines. I would think this would help private insurance.
Obama does not want private insurance companies to survive.
Etaoin: stated
"In 2008 the total Budget Outlays (expenditures) were $2,931,222,000,000. Three percent of that would equal $87,936,660,000. The total heath care expenditures for 2008 (including both Medicare and Medicaid) was $718,642,000,000, so that leaves a $630,705,340,000 “gap” (87% still to be paid for). And these programs don’t cover everyone! Care to guess the cost of “universal health care for all Americans” (even assuming the Republicans would allow it"
The recent 1 Trillion for the Health Care Act cover only 94% for Universal Care. Does not even cover inflation.
Private Insurance would be a lot cheaper to cover all those people.
meangreen wrote on May 28, 2011 @ 10:42 am: “In addition Etaoin where does the Patient Protection Act state private health accounts or insurance companies competing across state lines. I would think this would help private insurance. Obama does not want private insurance companies to survive.”
PART ONE
First, as I’ve already observed with regard to other people’s Comments, why are you posting this here? This is the hour of the Friday news roundup devoted to foreign news. (Are you planning to get your insurance from a foreign state? Say Japan?)
Second, the Patient Protection Act does have provisions allowing insurance to be sold across state lines. I’m not going into a lengthy discussion, since there’s an article by the Urban Institute that did the work for me. Read the web summary, and also download the fuller PDF report. (http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412195)
You will note that it differs from the Republican idea (which you apparently favor) because it allows each state to continue to regulate the insurance industry, and also provides minimum Federal standards. What the GOP wants (of course) is to allow insurers to “race to the bottom”: sell insurance from the state with the least regulation, to people in states with greater regulation, and thus by-pass the regulations all together. The report demonstrates what’s wrong with that scheme. (Not to mention it’s a clear invasion of “States’ Rights”.)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
Third, regarding what you imagine are Obama’s desires for private insurance: Yeah, that’s why the Patient Protection Act continues and works through our system of private insurance, instead of creating a “single-payer” government insurance plan, or even a “public option”.
Please let us know when you return to Planet Earth.
P.S. - I don’t have the time right now to deal with the rest of your nonsense.
Ciao.