[加评论] 页面有问题?请点击打印板-》打印版                  [推荐此文给朋友]
[博讯主页]->[大众观点]
   

北大教授李玲不知羞耻 把中国和美国的事颠倒着说(一)/王澄
(博讯北京时间2011年7月15日 首发 - 支持此文作者/记者)
    我一向不同意把中国的事和美国比,因为中共建立的封建等级体制落后于人类当代文明数百年,两个国家没有可比性。
    
     但是中共不知好歹,时不时地就拿美国黑人受歧视来说明中国怎么着也有“好一点”的方面,结果,我们看到西藏,新疆,和内蒙少数民族闹事,并出现暴力和以死抗争的现象,说明了少数民族被歧视到活不下去的地方是中国,不是美国;少数民族要和政府玩命的地方是中国,也不是美国。 (博讯 boxun.com)

    
    我对负责中国医改的北大教授李玲的看法是,她是中华劣等民族的丑恶代表,仗着自己手上有中共等级制可以随意操纵的“执行力”,得意忘形,不懂装懂,把中国和美国的事的颠倒着说,刚好作为我的批判靶子,我将借着对她的批判,把中共对人民的欺骗真相于天下。
    
    我这篇文章分为部分内容,头一个部分讲一讲美国医改的背景,第二个部分要告诉大家李玲是怎样帮助中共欺骗中国的底层人民的。
    
    事情是从这里开始的,博讯于2011年7月8日转载人民日报作者李红梅的文章,“北大教授:中国医改是奇迹,没有哪国有这成就”。
    
    北大教授李玲说,“我刚从美国考察回来,在美期间,我和该国同行曾就中美两国正在推进的医改做过交流。美国同行认为中国医改取得了巨大成就,充满希望,尤其是短时间内实现全民基本医保的成就令人惊叹,相比之下,美国医改则举步维艰,困境重重”。
    
     “美国是发达国家中唯一没有实现全民医保的国家,去年奥巴马政府通过了美国自1965年以来规模最大、最全面的医改方案,内容包括投入8000多亿美元,让近4000万名无医保的人进入医保体系,从而达到医保覆盖人口95%的目标。该方案的实施背景是,当前美国的医疗体系已成为该国发展的一大障碍。去年美国的医疗费用占GDP17.9%,人均费用达到8000美元,已成为国家、雇主公司不可承受之重。据统计,美国近年来超过六成的个人破产是因为无力承担医疗开支,每年有数万人因此得不到合适的治疗而死亡”。
    
     “可以说,这是一项设计得当、立意高远的方案,奥巴马意图要为美国未来发展奠定全新的基础。然而,该方案却在政治的角力中、在利益集团的斗争中,迟迟未能实施。这种政治体制注定让美国的医改无法推行,更不可能为老百姓谋得利益”。(李玲说完)
    
美国医改之争的背景

    
    美国的医改之争反映了美国主流社会对联邦政府的壮大和管事太多越来越担心,(注:美国分联邦政府,州政府,地方/市政府),美国建国的思想基础是“联邦政府越大越有权力对人民的潜在性伤害就越大”,所以,美国从建国始就把私人拥有枪支作为一项重大的国策,对于自己的政府就像中国的成语“疑人偷斧”那样总是怀着一颗不信任的警惕心。私人拥有枪支的最初目的是,如果任何一级政府有一天变成了迫害人民的政府,那么人民也要能够武装起来和政府的军队对峙。平时,就像小布什总统说的,“要把政府关在笼子里”。
    
    华人来到美国,听到这种说法,哈哈大笑,今天美国老百姓手里的长短枪能打过美军的精准炸弹和原子弹吗?
    
    虽然今天的美国老百姓打不过美国军队的现代化武力装备,但是戒心总是要有。
    
    所以,美国的医改之争的焦点问题如下:
    
    1.能不能不要由联邦政府或州政府出面,担心政府管事太多。
    
    2.市场化永远都是对的,国家统筹总是错的。
    
    3.医疗供给是不是人权,是人权就应当由政府提供给凭自己能力也无法能得到的人。
    
    4.医疗是不是人权,是人权就有被拒绝(买医疗保险)的权力,不买的权力。
    
    5.如果要求雇主出钱(或出一部分钱)给雇员买医疗保险,一部分挣扎在生死边缘线上的公司就会破产。
    
    我找到一篇比较能够完整叙述美国医改之争的英文评述,我把争论的主要对立意见简要地描述一下,(我没有时间做全文翻译,有能力读英文的人自己读或全文翻译一下)。
    
    表面上,争论是由美国还有3600万到4000万人没有买医疗保险引起的。
    
    “开明派”的意见Liberal arguments认为医疗保障是基本人权,像食物,衣服,住房一样,理应由国家提供保障。但是,由开明派的观点支持的社保金Social Security和老人医疗保障体系Medicare这么多年走下来受到大家的抨击最大,因为是联邦政府管理反而效率低花费大。
    
    奥巴马带有实用主义哲学pragmatism特征,他坐在总统的位置上举止像个“妈妈”,提出国家有道义上责任moral responsibility提供给每一个人医疗保障。
    
    而前总统里根和奥巴马的哲学理念完全不同,他当年坚决反对联邦政府创建老人医疗保障体系Medicare,他认为国家出面管这么多的事会毁了美国的自由精神。Reagan was a fierce opponent of Medicare’s creation, warning that it would destroy American freedom. (读者评:诚实Honest.)
    
    “保守派” Conservative arguments一直反对联邦政府管老百姓医疗的事,他们一直强调用市场化来处理医疗问题,保守派在1993年1994年时就和当时的总统克林顿的意见相左。
    
    保守派提出美国医疗领域中美容业的例子,美国的美容业是不被“管制”的,完全市场化经营,结果美容业发展的很好,服务水平提高,费用在降低。
    
    是随着政治的需要来解决医疗保障问题,(把美国没有医疗保险的几千万人口都想法保了险,美国就脸上好看了),还是沿着人性的正确理念ideological,利用竞争competition 和内心逐利的趋使incentive的手段市场化地发展医疗保障,这才是美国人深入到哲学领域里的争论。
    
    更具体的讨论是联邦政府管还是交给医疗保险公司管,或二者兼管,接着有人说,过去的小的医生诊所效率就很高,到了办医院效率就低了,(因为医院由大公司类型的组织管,竞争就减少了。所谓竞争是在“众多”的前提下进行竞争,如果只剩下几个垄断寡头,几个超大型公司,就没有多少竞争了)。
    
    也有人提出,强迫个人买医疗保险是违宪的,它破坏了个人的自由。
    
    那些透过哲学思想展现出的政治经济学原则,(比如市场经济),的应用,比如市场经济下的美容业,总是有深远的影响和永恒的生命力,而相比较之下,单纯的政治的手段总是肤浅和多变的,单纯用政治手段获取的成功总有“剜肉补疮”的效果,特别是那些完全背离人类哲学思想和政治经济学原则的政治上的成功,其背后往往预示着几代人的痛苦(的代价)。比如中国1949年到1978年取消了市场经济。
    
    (注:我这里说的政治经济学不是指中国人学的那个马克思主义政治经济学,因为马克思的剩余价值论是个伪概念,人类社会没有剩余价值这回事,所以马克思主义政治经济学完全是狗屁。中国的马克思列宁主义学者是人类社会的垃圾)。
    
    美国是一个可以让人深入思考的国度,中国是个百姓在政府屁股后面天天追着喊打的国度。
    
    (未完待续)
    
    
    附录:
    
    Arguments concerning health care reform
    
    Liberal arguments
    
    Some have argued that health care is a fundamental human right. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services."[147] Similarly, Franklin D. Roosevelt advocated a right to medical care in his 1944 proposal for a Second Bill of Rights.[148]
    
    
    Liberals were the primary advocates of both Social Security and Medicare, which are often targeted as significant expansions of government that has overwhelming satisfaction among beneficiaries.[149] President Obama argued during a September 2009 joint session of Congress that the government has a moral responsibility to ensure quality healthcare is available to all citizens. He also referred to a letter from the late Senator Ted Kennedy.[150]
    
    Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has argued that Republican and conservative strategies in opposing healthcare are based on spite: "At this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America." He argued that Republican opposition to Medicare savings proposed by the President is "utterly at odds both with the party’s traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe. Think about just how bizarre it is for Republicans to position themselves as the defenders of unrestricted Medicare spending. First of all, the modern G.O.P. considers itself the party of Ronald Reagan — and Reagan was a fierce opponent of Medicare’s creation, warning that it would destroy American freedom. (Honest.) In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich tried to force drastic cuts in Medicare financing. And in recent years, Republicans have repeatedly decried the growth in entitlement spending — growth that is largely driven by rising health care costs."[151] More recently he urged the House of representatives to pass the Senate's bill, which he called "centrist."[152]
    
    Conservative arguments
    
    Conservatives have historically argued for a lesser role of government in healthcare. For example, Conservative GOP columnist Bill Kristol advocated several free-market reforms instead of the Clinton plan during the 1993-1994 period.[153] He also argued that the results of the debate would have important ideological and political ramifications:
    
    "...[T]he long-term political effects of a successful... health care bill will be even worse — much worse... It will revive the reputation of... Democrats as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class..."[154][155]
    
    During the 2009 reform debate, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. opined in July, 2009:
    
    
    "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."[156]
    
    Investigative reporter and columnist John Stossel has remarked that "Insurance invites waste. That's a reason health care costs so much, and is often so consumer-unfriendly. In the few areas where there are free markets in health care -- such as cosmetic medicine and Lasik eye surgery -- customer service is great, and prices continue to drop."[157] Republican Senator and medical doctor Tom Coburn has stated that the healthcare system in Switzerland should serve as a model for U.S. reform. He wrote for New York Sun that reform should involve a market-based method transferring health care tax benefits to individuals rather than employers as well as giving individuals extra tax credits to afford more coverage.[158]
    
    
    Some critics of the bills passed in 2009 call them a "government take over of health care."[159] FactCheck called the phrase an unjustified "mantra."[160] (Factcheck has also criticized a number of other assertions made during 2009 by advocates on both sides of the debate).[161] CBS News described it as a myth "mixed in with some real causes for concern."[162] President Obama disputes the notion of a government takeover and says he no more wants government bureaucrats meddling than he wants insurance company bureaucrats doing so.[163][unreliable source?] However, other sources contend the bills do amount to either a government takeover or a corporate takeover, or both.[164][165][166][167][168] This debate occurs in the context of a "revolution...transforming how medical care is delivered:" from 2002–2008, the percentage of medical practices owned by doctors fell from more than 70% to below 50%; in contrast to the traditional practice in which most doctors cared for patients in small, privately owned clinics, by 2008 most doctors had become employees of hospitals, nearly all of which are owned by corporations or government.[169]
    
    
    Republicans also argue the proposed excise tax on medical devices and drugs would increase the tax burden on vaccine makers.[126][170]
    
    
    Some conservatives argue that forcing people to buy private insurance is unconstitutional;[171] legislators in 38 states have introduced bills opposing the new law,[172] and 18 states have filed suit in federal court challenging the unfunded mandates on individuals and states.[173][174][175][176]
    
    
    Senator Judd Gregg (R) said in an interview regarding the passage of healthcare reform: "Well, in my judgment we’re moving down a path towards...Europeanization of our nation. And our great uniqueness, what surrounds American exceptionalism, what really drives it is that entrepreneurial individualistic spirit which goes out and takes a risk when nobody else is willing to do it or comes up with an idea that nobody else comes up with and that all gets dampened down the larger and more intrusive government becomes, especially if you follow a European model." [博讯首发,转载请注明出处]- 支持此文作者/记者(博讯 boxun.com)
(本文只代表作者或者发稿团体的观点、立场)
191623
[发表评论] [查阅评论]
(不必注册笔名,但不注册笔名和新注册笔名的发言需要审核,请耐心等待):

笔名: 密码(可选项): 注册笔名

主题:

   
相关报道(更多请利用搜索功能):
·中国社会的落后程度/民主党全委会理论学习会小结(1)/王澄
·中医药能治病?中共欺骗人民60多年(五)/王澄
·批判政协委员王平的封建等级观念/王澄
·中医药能治病?中共欺骗人民60多年(四)/王澄
·中医药能治病?中共欺骗人民60多年(三)/王澄
·中医药能治病?中共欺骗人民60多年(二)/王澄
·中医药能治病?中共欺骗人民60多年(一)/王澄
·中共独裁政权“退休”后,医疗怎么改?/王澄
·农民工是这次中国革命的先锋队/王澄
·什么要提出反对“权贵精英”的经济掠夺?/王澄
·海外民运20年的教训/王澄
·中共建立的封建体制的核心价值是等级制/王澄
·中国革命是“狼”,共产党是“野牛”,太子党是野牛的“肛门”/王澄
·分裂型社会发生革命时由武装斗争决定胜负/王澄
·太子党不是好东西/王澄
·如果解放军再屠杀人民,将遭遇西方联军的空中打击/王澄
·中国革命列阵/王澄
·中国人民抛弃中共的原因是中共立党为私/王澄
·中共是中华文化传统中低级部分的丑恶代表/王澄
论坛最新文章:
  • 陆隐形资金大出逃 据指1312亿美元被搬到海外
  • 美国会众议院通过《香港人权与民主法案》
  • 巴尼耶:脱欧谈判正紧锣密鼓地进行
  • 尽管有风险 香港人还是要寻求外部帮助
  • 默克尔将为英国有秩序脱欧努力到最后一分钟
  • 联合国儿童基金会调研指每3幼童 1名营养不良
  • 默克尔干预 德国或绿灯允华为参5G
  • 或安抚初步协议疑忧 陆公布买美农产品近日总量
  • 武警总队副司令充当黑保护伞 吉林黑社会应火了
  • 南海对峙时 中国农业部长低调访越引关注
  • 香港街头抗议首现自制炸弹
  • 揭秘 德银行进中国市场疑靠向江泽民温家宝送礼
  • 猪肉价格上涨推升中国九月通胀增至六年来最高
  • NBA事件找上姚明加州酒庄 抗议者指姚明忘恩负义
  • 黄之锋回应参选政审查问:不港独 拥护基本法
  • 陆9月份CPI创6年来最大涨幅 猪肉价涨近7成
  • 西最高法世纪诉讼轻判加泰独派照惹抗议
  • 联系我们


    All rights reserved
    博讯是畅所欲言的场所、所有文章均不一定代表博讯立场
    声明:博讯由编辑、义务留学生、学者维护,如有版权问题,请联系我们。另外,欢迎其他媒体 转载博讯文章,为尊重作者的辛勤劳动以及所承担风险,尊重博讯广大义务人士的奉献,请转载时注明来源和作者。