Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Let's talk politics for a sec...

Well, with all the recent prickly religious threads these days going along without dissolving into flames, I thought maybe we could try politics.

Not so much "where do you stand," but more "how did you get there?"

Take Obama's lapel pin.

Since 9/11, pretty much every American politician has worn a little American flag lapel pin. It started off as a symbol of solidarity and patriotism, but now it's pretty much just added as a matter of course.

A symbol only has as much meaning as you give to it. For some, the pin is still a symbol of true patriotism. For others, it's a fashion accessory, something you have to wear if you want to be taken seriously, just like a tie. Doing that only serves to devalue the symbol.

Obama stopped wearing the pin , feeling that there were better ways to show patriotism than with a token gesture. And if you search the internet for "Obama lapel pin," you'll see the results. Or you can read this article about the media reaction to the "missing" pin.

It's not an isolated issue, either. This article from the AP today is what caught my eye in the first place. It talks about how stray remarks, token gestures, and unsubstantiated rumors (in this case, about Obama) are made into issues and could well become talking points in the general election.

Comedian Lewis Black discusses these non-issue issues , including the lapel pin, and makes his point better than I could.

To some degree, it's the media. Focusing on superficialities in general. Making things into issues that really shouldn't be, for whatever reason. Maybe because they don't have anything better to talk about, or because they don't know how to talk about more important things, or because they're afraid that if they do, they'll bore people and lose viewers.

I don't think that's all there is to it, though. People actually do care about these things. They hear about it enough, and it sways them. They listen, and they accept what they're told without taking the time to really think about it or look into it any further.

Meantime, it's a lot harder than it should be to find things like this simple chart , which compares the major candidates' stands on key issues.

I've used Obama as an example here, because that's what the article I saw was talking about. But I'm more interested in the more general view.

Is it like this in other countries?

How much is the media, and how much of the election is actually going to come down to trivialities and hearsay?

Or should these things matter, after all? How much does presentation count? Are issues like this really superficial?

What do you guys think?

Probably not, but they should be. I'm embarrassed to admit this, but I (and I'm probably in good company here) would rather read an article/watch a show about what someone was or wasn't wearing, than bore myself with 'issues' and campaign promises that probably aren't going to be kept anyway. Can you say 'no new taxes'? But then politics doesn't really interest me.

But I agree about these things swaying voters - well maybe not in all cases(see below). If you hear something often enough about someone's personal life for example, that's what'll stick in your mind, not the important stuff. And chances are, unless you're a politically aware voter, that's what'll pop into your head when you're deciding where to put your X.

Maybe you should count yourselves lucky that one of few things about Obama the media can find to latch on to is a missing lapel pin. My country's next president (he was recently voted in as ANC party leader) was on trial for rape two years ago and is currently awaiting trial on charges of corruption!

Gotta love Africa! :rolleyes:

I posted recently on my LiveJournal (I have a 'politics filter' consisting only of people who asked to join) about a similar issue: the topic of patriotism and how it seems to be such an important issue in the US and barely at all in other countries I've lived in. It was inspired by Michelle Obama's (admittedly carelessly-worded) comment to the effect that 'for the first time in my adult life I'm really proud of my country'.

Now, let's leave aside the fact that a more sensible comment would have been along the lines of 'never been prouder of my country'. The idea that one must express pride in one's country, that one wouldn't feel at all weird describing oneself as 'a proud American', that one would fly the flag at your house/back garden/bumper of your car/wherever, that one would describe America as 'the best country in the world'... all that is completely alien to me relative to the countries I've lived in. Now, maybe people in the UK and Ireland should show a little more national pride, but we'd just feel embarrassed to say those sort of things. And claiming one country as 'the best in the world' comes across as kind of... well, rubbishing every other country. Unless you assume that citizens of every other country make the same claim about their country too. (And we don't all do that).

The prevalent attitude in some circles seems to be that of my country, right or wrong. I was curious enough to look that quote up, and here's its origin, from a speech by Sen. Carl Schurz:
Now, before anyone takes offence, I'm not trying to criticise anyone. It's just that this difference in attitudes between the US and countries I've lived in (and while Canadians seem more likely to talk about pride in their country than Brits or Irish, they will also criticise their country more openly when decisions are made that they don't agree with) intrigues me. Why is patriotism something to be incredibly proud of in the US (and any hint of being unpatriotic almost a hanging offence ) while in some other countries it's almost a dirty word? And is there a happy medium?


Wendy

As many of you may or may not know, I'm Canadian. I've spent over half of my adult life living in the US (brought here by my husband's profession), but have also lived a number of years in Canada and Germany. There are wonderful things that I have loved about living in all three of these countries, and other areas where I feel there is definitely room for improvement. I'm proud to be a Canadian, but have never felt the urge to proclaim my citizenship from the rooftop to make sure that I'm not mistaken for an American.

I remember when we moved here when my son was a toddler. We were completing the final paperwork for our visas at US Immigration at the airport in Toronto. It was taking a while - as all government paperwork does. At one point one of the border agents turned to me (I think my son was a bit restless) and apologized that everything wasn't all done yet, but that I should remember that I was applying to live in the greatest country in the world.

I said nothing in retort - I don't even think my jaw dropped in actuality the way it dropped it in my head - but I was caught completely off guard by this remark. Neither my husband nor I had been showing any impatience by the length of time the procedure was taking - heck, we had lived in Germany before that, we learned all about paperwork while there. Yes, my son might have been fussing, but he was a toddler who had been confined for longer than he wanted...enough said.

I could understand this agent making a comment about the time-consuming paperwork, whether jokingly or seriously. I could picture an agent from any other country making a similar comment. But to need to be reminded - for what I felt was no reason - that all this paperwork was necessary because we were moving to the greatest country in the world? All governments require time-consuming paperwork when you are preparing to move there for any length of time, the US is not unique there.

I'm not criticizing this border agent, although I did find her "reminder" unnecessary and, for me personally, a little offensive. I think it's also likely that a strong sense of patriotism is encouraged in US border representatives, not surprisingly. But I also would be surprised if a border official from any other country in the world would make a similar comment.

Kathy

Yes, that's just it, Kathy: the feeling I get is that it's an instinctive reaction in the US. Again, I am not intending to criticise anyone, but I have heard that kind of statement - the greatest country in the world - many, many times. Also, when going through the border into the US, which we do from time to time to visit, we get the feeling that the guards believe everyone who's passing through to visit actually wants to stay.

Now, there are many reasons why I don't want to live in the US (the healthcare system is just one), though I do enjoy visiting because the country has a lot to offer and I love my American friends. But it's just, again, getting that sense of 'we believe we're superior'. And, since I know people in the countries I've lived in don't in general have that instinctive belief, I wonder how common it is elsewhere in the world. Do Australians, for example, believe that their country is 'the best in the world'? Jordanians? Brazilians?


Wendy

Wendy, this could be part of the issue right there. Because so many people do want to stay. And there are many who do stay - both legally and illegally - for weeks, months, years. America has been held up in the world's eye as the "land of opportunity" for so many and so long, and there are so many people who lead desperately poverty-stricken or oppressed lives in other countries who would do almost anything to find "the end of the rainbow" in the US. This would certainly influence the thoughts and practices of US Immigration officials, but would have less effect on the thoughts of the average American citizen.

Kathy

Oh, very true - but the same is also true of Canada, which (as you know) has very high immigration rates. And which, also, has easier and more straightforward paths to legal citizenship. In my job, I meet many clients who first fled from their countries of origin to the US, are denied asylum there (in some cases after living and working there legally for many years) and come to Canada, to be granted Convention refugee status within a couple of years of arrival.

It is swings and roundabouts; for many immigrants, it's easier to get work in the US, though most of those I meet did survival jobs. Typically, engineers or accountants or even doctors worked as cleaners or line-workers in factories. It's not quite as easy to get survival jobs, at least in London (Toronto's a very different story), though also by the time they come to me they're fed up with minimum-wage work and want to get back into their professions, which is another uphill climb altogether.

But this is going off onto a tangent.

/thread-drift


Wendy

That lapel pin controversy got me hopping mad. I agree with Obama - don't show me a pin, show me what you're going to do!

Yes, a lot of it is the media, but I can't get upset with them for showing things that get people watching. Because politics can certainly be boring, and the networks are in the business to make money. It's up to the people watching to take in that information with discernment, and it's sad that more people don't.

I don't know that they care, exactly - that implies that they took the subject to heart. I think it's more a case of people relying on the headlines of whatever news channel is showing over the bar in their favorite restaurant. And, just like you said, they listen and accept without question.

The end result is people think like one of my best girlfriends - when I asked her what she thought of Obama, her reply was that she could never vote for a man who was educated at an Al-Queda elementary school. After staring at her in shock for ten solid seconds thinking, 'are you kidding me?', I had to spend several minutes re-educating her. (Gently, because I do love her, but damn, girl!)

And the kicker is that politics can be interesting if you bring it down to a one-on-one level. Everybody cares about something - and if they can find the candidate that supports that, then they'll be interested. But the process as a whole can seem very daunting and people don't know where to begin looking for that information, so they just give up and vote however their parent or spouse or boss is voting. I know because I've done it myself.

I can't address the second part of your question, having never lived in another country. But as for US patriotism, I do have an opinion and a comment:

The opinion: I am patriotic, but for me that emotion has zero to do with the current policies of the nation. I am patriotic because of the ideals that the United States was founded upon. When I fly our flag, I am supporting the Declaration on Independence and the Constitution. I have no qualms about saying, "I love America, but I have major problems with the Bush administration." I realize that's a fine line. In fact, some people may say the line doesn't exist at all - you either love your country or you don't. But there are shades of gray in patriotism just like in everything else.

The comment: lack of patriotism is a hanging offense in the media. And since we learn about our politicians through that outlet, most of them fall into line because they don't want to be figuratively disemboweled on Fox News. But in real life, there are lots of people who patriotic in the same way I am or who aren't patriotic at all. And for the most part, as long as they can talk about their opinions in rational way and don't start hatching plans to blow things up, they aren't looked on as outcasts or nutcases.

I'm sure I've heard this myself, but I'm struggling to remember under what circumstances. I've got a Norman Rockwell type image in my head of a teacher teaching that to a row of bright faced kids. And that might be it - maybe it's just a matter of being told again and again as children that we're lucky to live in a free country. Also, Americans in general aren't very worldly. Only about 20% of us have passports, so it's not like a lot of our citizens have been to other countries to see what it's like for themselves. And to top it off, a scary percentage of people are more interested Britney Spears than world affairs, and when they do watch the news, there's constant talk of illegal immigrants - people who want to be here so badly that they broke the law to accomplish it. So when you're told over and over that we're great, you don't know anything about the rest of the world and you see that people are fighting to come here, assuming that America is the Best Country Ever is a natural conclusion.

My impression is that the current climate (especially given 9/11) and the successive issue of immigration has tossed "patriotism" into the fore maybe more than it has been before. Look into histories of other nations and I'm sure patriotism will show up at different moments depending on what was happening. Maybe a recognition of "been through that, didn't work so well" in other places has a lot to do with a possible repudiation (for instance in Japan, its only recently that there's been a growth of explicit patriotism and the reason has a lot to do with North Korea...).

Where I come from the patriotism is demonstrated similarly to that in the US (maybe even more explicitly), so the rhetoric here doesn't surprise me, even if it does make me uncomfortable. Patriotism and nationalism are close if not straight up interchangeable and just as irrational. It's just a matter of degree. What I mean by this is that there's nothing logical about love for one's country. So the greatest country in the world makes as much sense as the best mom in the world or the best dad in the world. It strikes me as a naive statement and given the rampagnt anti-intellectualism in the US, I'm not surprised at its currency.

Naivete can be brushed off easily, but when you're using that label "patriotism" to coerce people into agreeing because if not you somehow "don't belong," then it becomes a powerful tool for manipulation. I'm not a fan of that "us versus them" mentality.

ETA: Now I'm feeling guilty for the thread drift--so to give my .02

I've spent a substantial amount of time in two countries apart from the States and in those two countries I've noticed a somewhat similar popularity contest based on trivial matter, mudslinging and corruption.

I can't speak from anything but my experience witnessing elections when I say that superficial things seem to matter in that they connect the candidate to the people and increase that person's overall likeability. I've seen dislike quickly turn into mistrust and that translates into less votes.

It's just hard to think of how people relate in a mass to what is essentially a constructed image of someone (b/c we don't *really* know the candidates right? It's all politics).

alcyone
(whose brain hurts from all that rambling)

Lisa, I loved your post. And I definitely agree with you in the role that the media plays.

Now, I don't see that as a fine line at all. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if just about every adult American has said (or at least thought) something like that at one time or another. After all, Democrats may have said that with Reagan and Bush Sr. from 1980-1992, but then it would have been Republicans for the next 8 years with Clinton. I would think it is totally possible to love your country without being supportive of some/many of the policies of the government in power at the moment.

Kathy

Yes, exactly! You said it perfectly, Alcyone. I was thinking something along that vein but couldn't put it into words. And of course what the person who says any of these things really means is the best mom/dad/country for me. They just assume that what is best for them is best for everybody.

Interesting topic. And I think I have a slightly different perspective than a lot of people. As a member of the media, I think that we (as a body) have a large influence. Take, for example, the fact that I work at a newspaper in Washington, and we have had all of the major primaries on A1. Never mind that some of the states are nowhere near here, or that we had our own primary this week.

I think one reason why the media is all over it is because it's a more novel election. We have:

• A Republican senator/former POW who is clearly in favor of the war;
• A female Democratic senator who is very much against the war;
• And a black male Democratic senator who is against the war, but not as much so as his opponent.

McCain, Clinton and Obama, as people, never mind their stances on anything, are uncommon. A POW. A woman. A black man.

If one of the Democrats wins, history will be made. It already has been made by them being the two front-runners. Geraldine Ferraro and Jesse Jackson couldn't get it done. Obama or Clinton very well may.

And that's news.

I started here in the spring of 2004, when Bush was running against Kerry, and it wasn't this big of a deal. I know it's different circumstances, but seriously, the attention that the media is giving this election is unfounded.

Obama, Clinton and McCain were all in Seattle two weeks ago, and you'd think that the earth exploded in terms of not only the media response, but also the public interest. I swear, half of the newsroom was out covering these events. Thousands of people had to be turned away from KeyArena, where Obama was speaking, because the entire arena was full. And to give prospective, it's a NBA arena, so we're talking big deal here.

I have never seen an election that has drawn so much media coverage -- or public interest, for that matter. Yes, you could make the argument that everyone knew Bush would run for a second term and Kerry was an easy pick for the Democrats in 2004, but there is just something that feels different this time. Like I said in the first election post we had on here, in January, we ran a box with the top 16 candidates in it on A1, and I said at the time that it blew my mind that there were even 16 people that were considered top candidates.

And because of its fixation on coverage of this election -- and the public's seemingly insatiable thirst for information -- I think the result largely will be decided by the media's influence. Because there is SO much coverage (especially if you factor in online news and news blogs), I think the trivialities and hearsay are getting fleshed out and addressed faster than usual.

As for me as a person who ALSO is a member of the media, it's an odd place to be. We are encouraged to not attend things like rallies and caucuses, or to have bumper stickers or signs on our desks. And we are definitely not allowed to show political bias in the paper (other than Editorial).

But people obviously have their views and affiliations. And most media members, not surprisingly, are Democrats. (Add in the fact that Seattle is pretty liberal and it's really no surprise.) Those of us that, uh, aren't, are pretty quiet about it. I didn't vote in our primary because we had to mark political affiliation. And if anyone could uncover their colleagues' choices, it would be reporters.

That being said, I wasn't surprised one bit when a ton of my co-workers came to into the newsroom two weeks ago saying they had been at Obama's rally.

Wendy, Could you explain this to me? I don't argue, after 10 years on the boards together you can see that. But let me tell you how I have seen it. And I might be wrong.
I have a son with brain cancer. I am on many cancer message boards with people from all over the world. I see people from Canada that can't get MRI's, there is such a long wait time. I see people who can't get the medicine they need. The government tells you can only have this one medicine for a certain amount of time for the type of tumor you have. Not everything works for everyone. These people are scared.

I heard on a talk show the other day about the snowbirds from Canada going to Florida every year with their own money to get the medical care they can't get in their own country.

I know there are many people in the US that don't have health insurance. We have just always been one of the lucky ones that have good coverage. But it scares the heck out of me that my son might not be able to get the care he needs if we go to a National Health Care.
Sue

Sue, I'm so sorry to hear about your son. I can't imagine the worry you face for him on a daily basis.

Although I'm not Wendy, I'm going to jump in with a response.

There are undeniable problems with the Canadian health care system. My father had several misdiagnoses by his family doctor (obviously possible under any system), but then a very long wait to see a specialist once the doctor was finally willing to refer him...bottom line was that his lower leg had to be amputated. Perhaps if he had been living in the US, they would have been able to solve the problem more quickly.

There are advantages too. Everyone is insured. It doesn't matter if you're working or who you work for. And although medical costs are high there, of course, when my son was born they kept me in the hospital for 6 days after my C-section to ensure no complications from the surgery, etc. My understanding is that US health plans would have wanted me kicked out after 2-3 days.

Living here in the US, I've had no complaints with any of our insurance coverage. My husband is a professor, and universities typically offer good benefit plans for their employees. But since it is all linked to employment, what happens if you work for a company too small to be required to offer a health plan. I don't know how affordable self-purchased coverage is. A lot of low wage-earners who don't have coverage don't visit doctors at all, or overfill the emergency rooms when their children are sick because they can't afford an office visit. That's my main complaint about the US system - the lucky ones are fine, but if you're not covered...you're in a lot of trouble.

So there are advantages and disadvantages to each system. There are strong proponents of socialized health care in the US, who want to develop a universal plan, as well as strong opponents to the system in Canada who want to move closer to the US system.

Everyone has their personal preferences, and hopefully as many as possible are able to live within their system without too many problems.

ETA: I forgot to talk about the snowbirds. They're going to head south anyway for the weather. I don't know how much coverage that the provinces offer for medical care outside of Canada, and for how long. Do some of them "save up" to get procedures in the States because they can't get them in Canada? Perhaps...

Kathy

I can only speak as a Canadian looking in from the outside but there does seem to be more attention paid to what we might consider trivial matters when it comes to politics in the U.S. I do think that (at least from my POV) there is more attention paid to politics and political parties than we get up here in the media...a fair amount of my family and friends tend to be very skeptical of politicians across all party lines and are less concerned about what such individuals do voting wise versus what they say. Of course the fact that we have a much broader spectrum of parties at both the provincial and federal levels compared to the U.S. also means that it's sometimes easier to find a candidate who seems to fit the bill when it comes to voting in representatives and in fact there have been times when I've voted for someone who may represent a political party I am not always in agreement with but find that the individual is a better candidate than the rest of them, simply because the lines between the parties are more fluid and he/she may have some views that I can agree with.

Kathy, I know where you are coming from. When Brian took sick I was divorced from his father. But we were friends. I couldn't work because I had to take care of Brian and take him to all his appointments. We remarried so I could get back on his health plan (and have the bills paid). He moved back into the house into his own bedroom. It has worked out OK. But yes, a lot of people in this country do not have health care.

Yes, the talk show said the snowbirds go to Florida to get care they can't get in Canada and pay with their own money. Until the cancer National Health Care wouldn't have bothered me too much, now it scares the heck out of me!
Sue

Kathy responded on the healthcare issue, and I agree with what she said, but I'll just add a few points.

What I hate about insurance-based systems is that you get healthcare based on (1) whether you have insurance, (2) what your insurance will cover and (3) how much it will cover. I hear so many times about decisions being made by administrators in insurance companies, not by doctors. Insurance also doesn't cover everything; I have a friend who needs physiotherapy, but the $40/visit co-pays makes it too expensive for her. And then I was absolutely shocked the other week to discover that you have to PAY to go to an emergency room, and insurance might not refund the cost. In Canada (in the UK, and in most European countries) you walk straight into an ER and are seen based on clinical need. No paperwork, no credit cards. Give your name and address, or show your health card, and that's all.

Then there's the situation in the US for those who can't afford health insurance: the unemployed, the elderly, those in low-income jobs where health insurance isn't offered or is too expensive. I'm not just interested in health coverage for myself; I believe that it's a right, a fundamental of survival, and should be free at the point of use. That's the ethical/political principle that I grew up with, so it's what I'm used to. I was utterly shocked when I first discovered that health care isn't free in the US.

Under comprensive state-provided healthcare systems, people get care based on clinical need. Yes, you may have to wait for non-urgent treatment. Yes, some investigatory procedures, such as MRIs, may take a little longer if there are fewer MRI centres. But no-one is denied treatment based on inability to pay. (The one thing I dislike about the British healthcare system is that there's a private system alongside the National Health Service, so those who can afford to pay get treatment ahead of those reliant on the NHS, regardless of whose clinical need is greatest).

I'm very sorry to hear about your son, Sue. And my best wishes for his recovery. But, you know, I do also hear stories about insurance companies in the US denying people access to particular drugs (too expensive). I also hear about surgeons refusing to do particular types of elective treatment (afraid of being sued) - a friend of mine had elective surgery a couple of years ago and had to go to a hospital over a hundred miles from her home because the surgeon at her local hospital stopped doing that procedure due to fear of lawsuits.

As for Canadians going to the US and paying for treatment themselves, I don't know about that, but what I do know is how the Ontario health system responds to unreasonable delays in treatment (I don't know what part of Canada Kathy's from, but each province has their own system). In Ontario, if delays for a particular type of treatment are considered unreasonable, OHIP will pay for that treatment to be performed outside the province or even outside the country - as a stopgap, though ideally they want the province to improve on its service provision - which is already very good. My own city, by no means a Toronto or Vancouver, is a regional centre of excellence in a number of specialisms. And my own and my husband's experience of health care here has been absolutely excellent - speedy, efficient, excellent quality of care and barely any wait for appointments even when he had to see the top specialist in southern Ontario for a particular branch of opthamology.

So... yeah. I'm totally opposed to insurance-based healthcare because of the number of people left without coverage and the high costs when you do have to pay, even with insurance. There you go - that's my social democrat principles for you


Wendy

First off, for the record... I don't mind thread drift. I think free-flowing conversations are much more interesting. (As long as they stay reasonably civil, of course.)

That's the thing. There are better things they could be talking about. Obama is inexperienced. Clinton has taken more money from lobbyists than any other candidate (in this election, and possibly in US history). McCain's mixed voting record leaves something to be desired from just about everyone, and his "straight talk" is far from diplomatic. (It completely derailed his campaign in '04.)

On the other side of things, Obama won't take money from lobbyists, but is pulling in record-breaking amounts of money. Mostly from small-to-medium internet donations from nearly a million people. Clinton spent 8 years helping to run things when her husband was in office. McCain is a war hero with years of experience in congress.

And, too, there are the differences between the candidates on the issues. Different takes, different policies. Details to be examined. Details that still need to be filled in...

But I guess that only gets you so far. With news running 24/7, they're in constant need of filler. Which seems to take over more and more of the airtime...

As for patriotism in the US... There is a sort of background atmosphere that we're the best. But I don't think it's fair to say that all (or perhaps even most) of us feel that way, especially not to the degree you're talking about. (It's also become an issue between liberals and conservatives.) But, as with any belief, the ones who hold it most firmly are the loudest, and therefore get the most attention.

As to health care... Our system is messed up. Insurance companies have way too much power and control. Over patients. Over doctors. Over even drug companies (who used to be the major players). It's gone beyond ridiculous. As both a chronic patient and the son of a doctor, I've seen more screwed-up things than I care to think about.

Of course, no system is perfect. There are, as mentioned, issues with more socialized medicine.

I should mention, though, that ERs treat you whether or not you can pay. The hospitals will charge for services rendered, but they can't and won't turn you away for lack of money and/or insurance. Which is actually a problem in and of itself. The ERs have become clogged with non-emergency cases - people who don't need immediate or even serious care, but don't want to have to pay to see a doctor.

Moving on...

EditorJax said:

This jumped out at me. Obama opposed the war from the start, and has stated that, if elected, he'd work to withdraw our troops within a year. Clinton voted for the war initially, and has yet to make a clear comment about what she'd do if elected. So what makes you say that Clinton is more against the war than Obama?

(I agree, though, that this is looking to be an exciting and historic election.)

Other than that...

Ditto to pretty much everything Lisa said.

And best wishes to you and your son, Sue.

Paul

I think I want to say pretty much ditto to all of that, Paul. (I too thought Lisa's post was excellent and meant to say so earlier).

Oh, I'm absolutely sure you're right about that. It's just one of those messages which does get shouted about a lot: not just this week with the Michelle Obama thing, but it comes across a lot with some people (politicians, government employees, ordinary Americans, whoever) when they're talking to or about people from other countries. So it naturally gets noticed and, because of its underlying offensiveness, gets remembered.

Pride in one's own country shouldn't mean putting down others. Most of the time, even in the American context, it doesn't. As you say, it's those few strident voices.

The election generally: I'm fascinated by it this year, precisely because it's historic. McCain's not a textbook Republican candidate by any means (and I also found it interesting that he trounced his main opponents, both religious conservatives, even if Romney wasn't really standing on his religious convictions). Then Clinton and Obama, who will make history whichever of them is the nominee. I would like to see a lot more scrunity of Obama's record as opposed to his choice in accessories I would like to see more scrutiny of Clinton's funding. And of McCain's policy proposals. But, as EditorJax said, that's the media for you.

Finally, on healthcare, I take your point that ERs are supposed to accept people regardless of ability to pay. Looking in from the outside, of course, all we hear are the horror-stories, much as Americans only tend to hear the bad stuff about state-funded free-at-the-point-of-use healthcare (typically, waiting lists). We hear about ambulances being sent from hospital to hospital with critically-ill patients inside, as hospitals refuse to accept them because they're uninsured. I have no idea how often that happens - probably very rarely - but that tends to stick in people's minds when we read about it.

I would definitely like to see real scrutiny of the candidates' plans for healthcare reform. It's my impression that Edwards had the best-thought-out plan, but he's out of the running. That's politics for you.


Wendy

Several people have commented on this:
By state law (in every state) and by Federal court decision, a hospital emergency room in the US CANNOT withhold medical treatment from anyone based on race, color, creed, national origin, or ability to pay. You will be asked to provide either proof of insurance or contact information so you can receive your bill, but no one is supposed to be turned away due to lack of money or lack of insurance. If that happens, someone has broken the law.

And why is medical insurance a right? When did that slide into the Constitution? Remember, insurance won't treat your illness. Doctors and nurses do that. Just having insurance won't make anyone better. The quality of health care depends on the quality of the people taking care of you. I care more about how good my doctor is than I care about getting national health care (which I'm not convinced is a good thing).

What happens in any national health care system is that the people in that country pay for everyone's medical care. Having a national plan doesn't lower costs, it just spreads the impact to everyone. And if we're griping about the high cost of medical care in the US, we should mention one of the reasons for it: malpractice insurance.

Trial attorneys in the US have made suing doctors and hospitals into a cottage industry. One of the former Presidential candidates made his millions as a trial attorney, and in one of his cases he claimed in his summation to be channeling the unborn baby who allegedly died due to a doctor's malpractice. Anyone who's dealt with a lawyer and a lawsuit knows that the winning attorney is the one who makes out like a bandit, not the winning client. And if you're unfortunate to be sued, your attorney will put lots of your money in his/her pocket before the case is over whether your defense is successful or not.

I'm not bashing lawyers here. We need them. We need attorneys who will stick their necks out and defend those who need competent legal representation, and blaming lawyers for all (or even most) of society's ills is not valid. But I also believe that we should restrain frivolous lawsuits and cap awards for the nebulous "pain and suffering" of the allegedly injured party.

My two cents.