As a little boy I always looked forward to special Christmas and birthday presents from my “Auntie Etta” – usually a book with a personal note inscribed on the inside cover, accompanied by the “x’s and o’s” of kisses and hugs. As with most small children it was about the gift and not the giver, but as I grew I learned that Aunt Etta was the sister of my Glasgow-born grandmother, Mary. Mary was the youngest of nine children – the last born and the last to die. Somewhere among my mother’s keepsakes is a Victorian-era picture of my grandmother’s school class, and even now she is easy to pick out among all of those dour turn-of-the-century Scot faces.
Mary immigrated with her husband John (born in Portree on the Isle of Skye) to the US in the 1920s. The ties to “the old country” remained, with letters and (later) an occasional phone call traversing the Atlantic. Even though she lived in the US for 50 years, and adopted US customs and attitudes, my grandmother never lost traces of her Glaswegian accent, her deep underlying faith, and her very practical but sometimes humorous Scot sensibility.
Long before the onset of identity politics, my mother (who is a British subject) and in turn myself were raised to be Americans, with an appreciation of our family’s Scot heritage. We still keep in touch with family there. Familial connections, personal sensibilities – my own and those inherited from my grandmother – and a sporadic atavistic desire to permanently return to the land of my forefathers drives me to pay attention to Scottish affairs.
Read more »
The EU has a long experience with nationalized, single-payer health systems. Do they really provide the best patent care and experience? A new pan-European study supports the idea that competition and patient involvement in medical decisions is most effective. The study shows that, once again, the drones who speak of the marvels of single-payer European health care systems don’t have a clue as to what they are talking about.
The latest report from the Brussels-based Health Consumer Powerhouse, titled Euro health Consumer Index 2009 (please note the link is to the full report in a pdf format), contains some interesting data relevant to the healthcare debate in the US. The study measured and ranked the quality of the user/patient experience within 33 European countries by looking at six factors: Patient rights and information, e-Health, Waiting times, Outcomes, Range/reach of services provided, and Pharmaceuticals.
What system scores the highest? The Netherlands. Why?
Read more »
In the wake of the overwhelming Irish “yes” vote to the Lisbon treaty, some things seem almost certain: Poland will sign the treaty; the Czech Republic will be pressured to adopt it; Tony Blair may become “EU president”; an EU “Secretary of State” will be named; and there will be new impetus to add Turkey and several Balkan states to the Union.
What are the implications for the US? Giving Europe a single voice on common policy matters could ease US-EU trade relations and bolster joint defense programs. Adding Turkey to the EU will be a net positive for the US. The downside? A stronger, more unified EU could thwart or pressure American policy, but mutual economic interests and reliance on a joint US/Europe defense make this unlikely in most cases (with the exception of climate change and global warming policy, which seems to border on a religious obsession among many Europeans.)
There’s an opposite view though: In Europe nationalism usually prevails over pan-European sentiments. Citizens of the US refer to themselves primarily as Americans and secondarily as residents of their individual states, while Europeans still identify themselves as nationals of their own country first. Individual member states inevitably seek to maximize the welfare of their citizens, and the Lisbon Treaty contains several provisions to guard member state sovereignty.
Read more »
The 1 October 2009 meeting in Geneva between the so-called E3+3 (Britain, France, Germany, the US, Russia and China) and representatives of “Mahmoud and the Mullahs” was a not-so-surprising initial success. The Iranian leadership knows it’s being backed into a corner following the disclosure of the under-construction Qom enrichment facility. The only hope for them to stay in power and continue their program is to play along.
The outcome of yesterday’s meeting didn’t stop the centrifuges from spinning. Nevertheless, it’s a promising start, with an agreement to allow inspection of the Qom facility and to ship roughly 75% of Iran’s stockpile of 1,600 kg of low enrichment uranium (LEU) to France or Russia for enrichment to research grade. This is probably close to the total amount of LEU in Iran, given the number of operational centrifuges at the Natanz enrichment facility (see my post Iran’s Nuclear Program: By the Numbers for more details.) What’s left isn’t enough to make a bomb anytime soon.
There’s a few unanswered questions though:
Read more »
The American view that the French are wimps is ugly and undeserved but widely held, so French President Sarkozy’s statement implying that President Obama is one gets our attention. Apparently Obama didn’t want Sarkozy to upstage him at the UN in September. The result:
Sarkozy was so annoyed with Obama’s weak-kneed approach that he reportedly told Le Monde that “we live in the real world, not in a virtual one”, a cutting and mocking reference to the US president’s drive for a new arms control treaty.
More from the Wall Street Journal
President Sarkozy in particular pushed hard. He had been “frustrated” for months about Mr. Obama’s reluctance to confront Iran, a senior French government official told us, and saw an opportunity to change momentum. But the Administration told the French that it didn’t want to “spoil the image of success” for Mr. Obama’s debut at the U.N. and his homily calling for a world without nuclear weapons, according to the Paris daily Le Monde.
Read more »
You’d think that President Obama could spare a few minutes for a formal meeting with the leader of one of our oldest and most important allies while both are in town on business. Not so. According to the BBC:
The prime minister’s team were “frantic” after being unable to secure the talks at the UN summit in New York, a diplomatic source has told the BBC.
However, the president held private meetings with the leaders of Japan, China and Russia.
Downing Street said reports of a snub were “completely without foundation”.
Not a snub? Sounds like typical British “stiff upper lip” stuff so as not to create further tension and to minimize Brown’s domestic political embarrassment.
Read more »
