Here are 9 things many Americans just don’t understand — compared to the rest of the world

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. Universal Healthcare Is Great for Free Enterprise and Great for Small Businesses

In 2009, the Center for Economic and Policy Research published a study on small businesses around the world and found that “by every measure of small-business employment, the United States has among the world’s smallest small-business sectors.” People in the Netherlands, France, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Belgium and other European countries are more likely to be self-employed—and the study concluded that universal healthcare is a key factor. According to CEPR’s study, “High healthcare costs discourage small business formation since start-ups in other countries can tap into government-funded healthcare systems.”
...
2. Comprehensive Sex Education Decreases Sexual Problems

For decades, social conservatives in the U.S. have insisted that comprehensive sex education promotes unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. But in fact, comprehensive sex education (as opposed to the abstinence-only programs that are common in the American Bible Belt) decreases sexual problems, and the data bears that out in no uncertain terms. Public schools in the Netherlands have aggressive sex education programs that America’s Christian Right would despise. Yet in 2009, the Netherlands had (according to the United Nations) a teen birth rate of only 5.3 per 1,000 compared to 39.1 per 1,000 in the U.S. That same year, the U.S. had three times as many adults living with HIV or AIDS as the Netherlands.
...
4. Adequate Mass Transit Is a Huge Convenience

When it comes to mass transit, Europe and Japan are way ahead of the U.S.; in only a handful of American cities is it easy to function without a car. New York City, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia and Washington, DC are among the U.S.’ more mass transit-oriented cities, but overall, the U.S. remains a car culture—and public transportation is painfully limited in a long list of U.S. cities. Many Americans fail to realize that mass transit has numerous advantages, including less air pollution, less congestion, fewer DUIs and all the aerobic exercise that goes with living in a pedestrian-friendly environment.
...
7. Union Membership Benefits the Economy

In 2014, a Gallup poll found that 53% of Americans approved of labor unions while 71% favored anti-union “right to work” laws. Union membership is way down in the U.S.: only 6.6% of private-sector workers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, belonged to unions in 2014 compared to roughly 35% in the mid-1950s. The U.S.’ overall unionization rate (factoring in both public-sector and private-sector workers) is 11.1%, which is quite a contrast to parts of Europe, where overall union rates range from 74% in Finland and 70% in Sweden to 35% in Italy, 19% in Spain and 18% in Germany. That is not to say unionization has not been decreasing in Europe, but overall, one finds a more pro-labor, pro-working class outlook in Europe. The fact that 47% of Americans, in that Gallup poll, consider themselves anti-union is troubling. Too many Americans naively believe that the 1% have their best interests at heart, and they fail to realize that when unions are strong and their members earn decent wages, that money goes back into the economy.
...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/here-are-9-things-many-americans-just-dont-understand-compared-to-the-rest-of-the-world/

[ms liberty]

1. KR&B...n/t

[djean111]

2. I am amazed at how many Americans think they are better off than Europeans because the gas

costs so much more in Europe. Not processing the fact that those extra taxes pay for health care and infrastructure.

[yeoman6987]

5. It would be great to have a Eurotrain system here

But it doesn't seem wanted. Heck look at how much trouble it had been trying to get a train from LA to Frisco. In Annapolis, there was a brief discussion about expanding the DC Subway system to Annapolis. The population was outraged so it was dropped. It doesn't seem to be a priority for Americans and until that changes we won't have a train system.

[jeff47]

70. We're much more spread out.

Our cities are much further apart, making it much more expensive to build a passenger rail network. Which then leads to a whole lot of those objections by citizens.

Also, most of the growth of our cities happened after cars became widespread, leading to spread-out cities (Exceptions being the Northeast and a few older "big" cities like Chicago). So when you're building your rail network, the land is much more expensive, and the locals are going to have a harder time using it - they have to drive from their house to the train station.

[djean111]

91. Oh, I know that, of course. I am just saying that pointing out how much more Europeans

pay for gas as a reason to think We're Number One! and somehow better off with cheaper gas is bogus.
And - this is why, if I ever can afford it, I would rather live in Holland or Tokyo. I love the trains and buses and the walking.

[Surya Gayatri]

6. Flies right over their pointy heads...

How about those top-notch mass transit systems in most EU countries.

Americans are really impressed when they visit here and use the facilities.

But, they seem incapable of adding 2 + 2 in order to understand where all that great stuff comes from.

[djean111]

9. Yes. I have worked in Den Haag and in Tokyo, months at a time, and the transportation

is fantastic and easy to get around on and actually fairly inexpensive. I would live in either place, if I could.

[Surya Gayatri]

11. Well, come on over...LOVE, LOVE, LOVE Holland and if

I weren't settled in France I'd go there for sure.

[Jon82]

20. love the ease of transit in Europe

My father was born in Germany and I visit whenever I can. I live the public transit and the rail way system. I have yet to need a car of my own except for once when I decided to drive and visit places for a long visit. Even on that trip, the car stayed parked for the majority of the trip.

[jeff47]

71. Density is the problem.

Buildings taller than 3 stories are rare in the Los Angeles area, because the place is so spread out. If you drive from Lyon to Paris, you will pass through countryside. If you drive from Los Angeles to San Diego, you never leave low-density city.

So Europe-like mass transit becomes basically impossible - people are coming from too many different places and going to too many different places.

We're impressed with that mass transit, but we also know it isn't going to happen in the US until we stop spreading out. And given just how empty most of the US is, it's going to be a long time until that naturally happens. Attitudes could change, but it would require changing the attitudes of a hell of a lot of people, and buying up a hell of a lot of very expensive land.

[WillTwain]

90. It requires thinking

Americans hate that.

[Surya Gayatri]

3. And, millions of them revel in that ignorance - cling to it with a death grip...

[lastlib]

31. Well, 'Murika -- number one, baby!

that seems to be the only "fact" that penetrates the fog.

[Surya Gayatri]

34. And, long may it be so...LOL! As I launch into a rousing

Kate Smith-style rendition of the song!

[niyad]

4. k and r. it is truly disspiriting to realize how skewed the average amercan's view of reality is.

[valerief]

7. Many of us DO understand. Sadly, not enough to make a difference.

ALL of Congress understands these things, but they don't care.

[Enthusiast]

15. +1.

[truedelphi]

26. Poll after poll has shown that the average American wants Universal HC,

the Single Payer version.

And here in California there is growing recognition of the fact that unless you are one of the One Percent, the health services offered to most of us are pathetic.

People continually misdiagnosed, or told they do not need treatments they need, or offered more expensive treatments than alt treatments that work better and have no side effects, and then in defiance of state law, many of those working in hospitals and nursing homes do not speak English, or refuse to speak English.

Situation with the many women whose fibroids being diagnosed still result in their doctors performing hysterectomies, a 1950's solution!!! rather than embolization - that is beyond disgust.

[Grey]

8. K&R

[Lifelong Protester]

10. K&R

[world wide wally]

12. Serious question:

Does any other country have a Fox News?

[mountain grammy]

17. Actually, Canada ventured in to conservative media

The network has failed miserably. Not so many suckers in Canada.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/news/sun-news-network/

[War Horse]

21. Well, you know what the most dangerous creature

coming out of Australia is...

And expansion seems to continue be his goal.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. You can get the American Fox News on British satellite TV, though very few do

I know it was reprimanded at least once for airing opinion based on lies:

It is the third ruling by British regulators against Fox News, which is available in Britain to Sky Digital customers, in the past year. It broke the rules on "undue prominence" in two previous news items which plugged beauty products and a seed manufacturer.

This is a tricky issue for Ofcom: how to regulate channels which are not produced principally for viewers in Britain. The Independent Television Commission, which preceded Ofcom, responded to complaints last year that Fox did not meet its strict "due impartiality" rules by issuing a ruling that is regarded in some quarters as a fudge to avoid a standoff with Mr Murdoch: it said "due" meant "adequate or appropriate", and Fox News could justifiably claim to have achieved a level of accuracy and impartiality that was appropriate to its audience in the US, where different rules apply.
...
The Fox presenter, John Gibson, said in a segment entitled My Word that the BBC had "a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest"; that the BBC "felt entitled to lie and, when caught lying, felt entitled to defend its lying reporters and executives"; that the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan, in Baghdad during the US invasion, had "insisted on air that the Iraqi army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American military"; and that "the BBC, far from blaming itself, insisted its reporter had a right to lie - exaggerate - because, well, the BBC knew that the war was wrong, and anything they could say to underscore that point had to be right".

Ofcom said Fox had breached the programme code in three areas: failing to honour the "respect for truth" rule; failing to give the BBC an opportunity to respond; and failing to apply the rule that says, in a personal view section, "opinions expressed must not rest upon false evidence".

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/jun/15/broadcasting.ofcom

Murdoch's British TV news operation, Sky News, is not heavily opinionated. You might say that its choice of stories can lean towards corporations, in that it may be less likely to run stories that are critical of big business (eg Murdoch's), but what it does say is not slanted in the way that Fox is. And it doesn't broadcast much opinion, and certainly nothing extreme like O'Reilly or Hannity.

What the UK does have is heavily biased, rabble-rousing, fact-ignoring, nationalistic newspapers. These (eg Murdoch's The Sun, or the Daily Mail or Daily Express) are just as bad as Fox News, but in print (or on the internet - the Mail is the most-visited English language newspaper site in the world, because it has perfected clickbait celebrity stories).

[world wide wally]

36. At least GB insists on a truth standard and does not allow unadulterated propaganda while still

preserving the freedom of speech. I wish the US could be a little more judicious in what we allow.
My point being, it is directly a result of American propensity to bullshit and Fox's constantly serving it up is the main reason people in the US cannot figure out these things the rest of the world knows.
Is that what they mean by "American exceptionalism"?

[elzenmahn]

74. Canada had "Sun News", or whatever it was called...

...it went out of business, however.

And remember, Murdoch's reach is world-wide, not just the US. His Right Wing Bullshit works only where there's fertile soil to feed it - undereducated populations led by emotion rather than reason, a completely corrupted government, etc.

[Demeter]

13. I wouldn't stop at 9. the US is sadly deficient in many more areas of knowledge

and it's by intention: of the churches, the corporations, the politicians and the puppet press.

[Enthusiast]

16. Precisely.

[erronis]

46. +++ - and underlying each one of those is GREED - $$$

While I think there are some religious people, some companies, a few politicians, and non-MSM that really care about people and the country/worlds, the vast majority as been subverted by individuals and groups interested only in stealing others money.

Obviously these greedmongers aren't going to see the errors of their ways and give up control voluntarily. It won't be fun for anyone when the balance is reset.

[daleanime]

14. K&R.....

[yuiyoshida]

18. I am still wondering if I will ever see

The bullet train in my life time..in California. So many countries have it, including some super fast ones in Europe and Asia. I don't know why we are lagging so much, but I really want to ride one someday from SF to LA and back. If we ever get one built in California, it may be a long time into the future, I may need to use a Walker just to get on it!!!

[airplaneman]

38. I rode the bullet train from Amsterdam to Paris

It was so cool. You could not even tell you were traveling so fast and it was so quiet. But sure enough we were getting off in two hours flat. Taking standard trains back took 14 hours and many changes.
-Airplane

[Populist_Prole]

19. Really good article

Bookmarking for reference, and thanks for posting it.

[treestar]

22. #3 does not work

A lot of people in jail doesn't mean there are not "civil liberties." Each of those people is in jail pursuant to a system that contains them all. At least they are the most valid jail population in the world. Other people may have fewer in jail but they include political prisoners and real criminals not in jail because they are running things for real.

No one says learning another language is a character flaw here. There isn't a lot of motive to do it for any English speakers. Because of the American dominance they would deny.

LOL at 9. Talking of Europe, really? They have no "oligarchy?" They are the ones with monarchies, not us.

the rest seems fair enough.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. The USA has a huge jail population because of crappy laws about drug posession

President Obama discusses it here:

It is a civil liberties problem: people are locked up for a victimless crime. This make their chances of getting a job worse, and means they are more likely to eventually turn to crime with actual victims.

Languages?

Every four years, it seems, one of the major issues in the U.S. presidential campaign is how many languages the candidates speak, the implication being: the fewer, the better. This year, we’ve seen Newt Gingrich knock Mitt Romney for speaking French, as well as general mockery of Jon Huntsman for his displays of speaking Mandarin Chinese. In 2004, it was John Kerry who was derided by George W. Bush for being a Francophile who “looks French.” And in 2008, Barack Obama faced criticism for his upbringing in Indonesia.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/99863/bilingualism-presidents-foreign-languages-fluent

Some European countries have monarchies, but they have little power. The Koch brothers, or the big banks, have more control over the USA than a constitutional monarch.

[treestar]

48. But those laws were passed by legislatures and signed by executives

It is not a violation of civil liberties for people to be arrested and jailed under them. They can be challenged for constitutionality and if upheld, it's not a violation of civil liberties. Even if struck down, the person was arrested per the system and had the change to challenge all parts of it.

Why people find it necessary to put labels on things is beyond me. No one says it is not bad or that you can't take the position that there are too many drug laws. You can loudly protest that and urge people to repeal them all. But none of it is a "violation of civil liberties." It amazes me people think that something has to have that label to be changed or fought.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. 'Civil liberties' are not entirely defined by the US constitution

For example, it used to explicitly recognise slavery as lawful. It may not talk about problems; it includes some things that few other countries would regard as a 'civil liberties' issue, such as owning firearms. There are other standards of what is an infringement of civil liberties.

An example of US laws that would almost certainly be struck down under the European Convention of Human Rights is mandatory life sentences for 'three strikes'.

[treestar]

52. Maybe but I don't see any other country as being ahead of the US on that subject

In Europe they don't have a First Amendment and often have laws limiting speech.

And three strikes laws can be struck down in the US itself.

Can people challenge their own laws in other countries?

[muriel_volestrangler]

58. Yes, people in Europe can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

and if that court decides a national law contravenes the Convention, then the country has to change it.

Various groups produce ratings of countries for their freedoms and rights, so we can see if it looks as if anyone is ahead of the USA. For instance, the CIRI Project associated with some US universities ranks the USA at equal 38th for respect for human rights, behind, for instance:
Top 9 Countries – Overall Respect
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
San Marino
Andorra
Australia
Denmark
Iceland
Norway

[treestar]

59. An international convention is not quite the same thing

since in the end a country can drop out of one.

I would say as long as they have nothing like the First Amendment, they will never be ahead of the US. Just my HO, but any country that has a possibility in its laws of limiting speech is in a lot more potential danger than the US.

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. Well, that's the general mechanism for Europe, since that was what I had mentioned earlier

Individual countries can have mechanisms for constitutions and appeals that laws go against them, eg:

Fundamental rights (German: Grundrechte) are guaranteed in Germany by the Federal Constitution and in some state constitutions. [1] In the fundamental law most fundamental rights are guaranteed in the first section of the same name (Article 1 to 19). They are subjective public rights with constitutional rank which bind all authorities of the state.[2] For the case that the fundamental rights are violated and also the legal protection before the remaining courts fails, the fundamental law provides with the constitutional complaint an extraordinary appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court (Article 93 paragraphs 1 No. 4a Basic Law).

Accordingly to this regulation the Federal Constitutional Court can be called not only against the violation by fundamental rights, but also by violation "of the rights set out in paragraphs 4, 33, 38, 101, 103 and 104 of Article 20". Hence, these rights are called the rights identical to fundamental rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany

[treestar]

65. what are the fundamental rights?

unreasonable searches and seizures? right to counsel? What is the state's burden in a criminal case?

Even if they have all that, they don't have a right to free speech in the sense that laws limiting it cannot be eliminated.

[DeadLetterOffice]

39. "Most valid jail population" ???

I think you and I must have very different definitions of the world 'valid.'

Maybe you meant "least percentage of political prisoners" - although I have no idea if that's true or not, that assertion at least I could understand. But 'valid' is a whole other issue...

[treestar]

49. Well we do have a system that includes the bill of rights

some people actually do commit crimes and are actually guilty. sometimes I think there is a segment of DU that thinks there should be no criminal law. Not everyone is falsely accused. Humans commit crimes.

A defendant in our system can challenge a lot of things. The state even has the burden of proof. Beyond a reasonable doubt. What more is to be demanded?

[DeadLetterOffice]

57. How about less institutional racism in our CJ system?

That'd be a good place to start with the asking...

[treestar]

60. That's a problem, but right now, the law applies on its face equally to all

Jurors may be biased. But even that is subject to case law, as in the Batson line of cases where defendants challenged prosecutors for keeping juries all white or as white as possible by use of peremptory challenges. Those cases went to the SCOTUS in the U.S. No law in the US can now make it different based on race or gender as to a defendant's rights in courts. Any nonwhite person threatened has the right to challenge their conviction.

The law does not have any biases built into it. They've all been challenged and eliminated by the courts. If people within the system are biased, that must be addressed. But that is not a denial of civil liberties on the face of it - a Jim Crow law might have been. But this country did change all that because it was the right thing to do?

[DeadLetterOffice]

62. It's a bigger issue than jury bias.

It's also about who the police pick up, who they subsequently charge with what (and who they don't charge), which groups of people get prosecuted, which get offered plea deals, and THEN you get to the issue of jury biases, and judicial biases in sentencing.

All of which is why I take issue with the assertion that our prisons are full of "valid" prisoners.

[treestar]

64. But their decisions can still be questioned

and it's not written in the law that the threshold to arrest a black man is lower. Who the police pay more attention to might involve their biases. But it is not written into the law and if it is a violation of civil liberties, anyone affected can do something about it. They can challenge the conviction. There are laws allowing you to sue for violations by individuals of your civil liberties for heaven's sake. So how can this country be said not to respect them? A country that did not would have no such procedures.

[DeadLetterOffice]

66. I'm not taking issue with the law as it is written.

And I never said a peep about civil liberties.

I took issue with the idea that the US has a "valid" prison population simply because we don't have political prisoners.
My point was that there are other things that might effect the so-called "validity" of our prison population.

[treestar]

67. I meant that in the sense that

we at least have a system with checks and balances, where the burden of proof is on the government. So I would question other countries' prison populations, which though fewer, might not include that. The articles and people who make this argument seem to think numbers alone indicate people have fewer rights.

[DeadLetterOffice]

68. Understood.

I am not a big fan of raw numbers -- much prefer incidence rates and percentages etc. -- and know next to nothing about other country's systems of jurisprudence, so am utterly clueless about if/how our system compares with others in terms of prison population breakdowns...

[elzenmahn]

76. The law is only as valid as the actions of those charged to enforce it...

...for example, we have a Sherman Anti-Trust Act, which was intended to break up the super-large corporations that hindered competition. (Remember Standard Oil? AT&T?). Ronald Reagan chose to no longer enforce that law, and look what we have now.

If the law is not enforced, then it's as invalid as if it was never passed in the first place.

[Enthusiast]

87. Well said.

[elzenmahn]

75. How many of those monarchies have real political power...

...and how many, like in Great Britain, are just figureheads?

[ErikJ]

23. Xcellent piece. I'll print this off and post on wall

for any time in debate with delusional RWers.

[War Horse]

25. No. 1 is so true

It's been documented over and over again. But there's just a deeply ingrained mistrust there.

The point about mass transit is also very true, but the naysayers do have a point: The sheer size of the US vs. Europe/Japan.

Also, while mass transit is great in most European capitals and in and around cities over a certain size, it's not that great everywhere. Almost non existent in some places. I've been to places in Spain, France and Scandinavia where relying on mass transit is nearly impossible/very impractical/a pain in the derriere. Or somewhere in between

[Igel]

40. Most of them are simplistic.

Take mass transit. I lived in a city that tried to have good mass transit. It was a nightmare. Yes, I could get from anywhere to anywhere using the bus system. But there was no bus from where I lived to anywhere but the mass-transit center downtown.

There was no bus to where I worked except through downtown. Or to where I shopped except through downtown. Population densities didn't make any other bus routes feasible, and most of the time even though routes were far less than half full.

Walk 10 minutes to bus stop. Wait at bus stop. Ride 25-30 minutes downtown. Wait at transit center. Ride 25-30 minutes to bus stop near work. Walk 10 minutes. To get to work at 8, I'd have to leave by 6:15 am at the earliest. Get off work at 5, I'd get home around 6:45.

If I drove it took 20 minutes each way. If I biked, it took 15 (because of the city's eccentricities, there was a large swathe of park that had to be detoured around by car).

Same problem in Houston. Big, sprawling. But I'd rather not live in a small apt. or mini-townhouse in the city because I like my nectarine tree, vegetable garden, fig tree, aronias, goumis, jujubes, citrus trees. Population density where I live is already a bit too high for my druthers. The places I've seen in Europe with good mass transit systems rely on a lot of apts. or in truly small yards where you manage to grow a few gooseberries or currants and have a place for the kids to play or to read in the sun. It's why mass transit is more plausible in Prague and Lodz than in other places in the CR and Poland.

The US situation results in an emergent choice to have difficult mass transit. It's not a simple question of infrastructure commitment, it's a question of lots of little choices made by a lot of people that have very real consequences when they're all added up. (A lot of consequences are a kind of emergent choice, even though I haven't seen that particular term used by anybody else. I've taught kids who wind up living in poverty as a result of an emergent choice--lots of little choices that seem good along the way end up resulting in a very nasty and pretty much not just predictable but even inevitable consequence.)

Same for small employers. Most European companies can't grow large without government help. That means instead of having a restaurant that grows from one site to 2 sites to 5 sites to 20 sites as in, say, Houston, you have 10-20 restaurants. In the US, the help tends to be private and most importantly we still have more social trust between citizens than a contract between citizens and government--something that was far more true 30 and 50 years ago than now, but still more true of the US than Europe.

Even single-payer health care is a devilish proposition. Most Americans want it. But if you do a survey asking what they want beyond something that can bear the title "single-payer health care" the results diverge in ways impossible to reconcile. It's like saying we all want to be "happy," but the definition of "happy" is all over the place.

[ensemble]

61. well....

I agree with regard to mass transit. I think mass transit projects would be a good infrastructure investment, but the population density is relatively low in the US, so the car is always going to be a significant part of the transportation system.

OTOH, any single payer system is significantly better than what we have and its not really debatable. Sure, people who want the healthcare industry to keep profits high can throw all kinds of wrenches into the system, but Medicare for all is not complicated and not impossible.

[Cleita]

27. Don't paint this American with your broad brush.

Many of us understand this but are powerless to do anything about because our Capitalistic system doesn't favor it.

[elzenmahn]

77. I would say it's more than purely Capitalism...

...though that's a part of it.

It's corruption. We are not willing to admit that we are perhaps living with the most corrupt government on the face of the earth. Want to know where the seat of power resides in the US? Not the Capitol. Not the White House.

It's on K Street.

[Cleita]

79. OK. Would you go a step further and admit that capitalism breeds

corruption if left to Ayn Rand libertarianism?

I'm not against Main Street capitalism. I once was a Main Street capitalist myself and made a living from it. I did not acquire castles, jets and yachts from it. Yet, I was always aware that the corporate behemoths around me got all the breaks. I struggled through the structure of regulations and taxes. The big guys paid someone off. That's the truth of it. Now they are buying what's left of our government structure of regulation that kept them at least somewhat honest. It's sad.

[elzenmahn]

80. If left completely unregulated...

...like the Ayn Randies would like us to have it, then yes. When left completely unregulated, the logical end-result of capitalism is incurable institutional corruption.

I've had a bit of experience as a business owner myself, and can attest to what you're saying about all of the advantages going to the big businesses. Personally, I encourage the "main street" version of capitalism, with multiple competitors which results in multiple consumer choices. The problem is that we don't have that in the top echelons of Finance and Corporate America. We have oligarchy.

[riverbendviewgal]

28. thankful I live in Canada.

I visit the USA and have relatives and friends in the USA (some are heavy duty Military Industrial Complex Right wingers).
my insight on:

1. Universal Health care . Grateful for Canada's as my son & husband had the best of health care while being treated for their cancers. There were no medical bills or restrictions in their treatments. . My other son has the best health care in the UK. My daughter in law's family in Israel has healthcare that is free for Israel citizens. My US family & friends must rely on either work health care plans that do not cover much of the costs, or if they have no health care (before Obamacare) go to the Emergency room and hope there are the donations and spagetti dinners to raise funds for the health care bills for their care.

2.Sex education: my children raised in the Canadian educational system which I am familiar with from 40 to 30 years ago. They were taught in primary and in high school. There were no objections from me or any other parent I knew. We thought it good. in the UK my grandchildren have sex education and the NHS provides unrestricted medical services relating to questions, contraception or STDs.

3.EXCEPTIONALISM: The USA uses Citizen based taxation . So does Eritrea. The rest of the world uses Resident based taxation. My Cdn/UK and Cdn/Israeli grandchildren can work anywhere in the world. They can live a few years or permanently other than where they were born and only pay income tax to where they work and live. The USA owns you for life. The only way out is to renounce and file 6 years of US taxes and report 6 years of their bank accounts everywhere in the world. Plus pay an exit tax of $2,350. Ted Cruz paid $100 and wrote a letter to the Cdn govt to renonce. So simple.
the other exceptional USA has in the most guns and incarcinated persons than other countries. So

4. Mass transit in Canada's bigger cities is good to great. I was impressed with England's. Many young people in metro areas of UK and Canada opt to not own a car.

5. Religion in both UK and Canada is not in your face like it is often in the USA.

6. I myself learned Latin and Spanish when going to high school. My grandaughters all know English. Two are fluid verbally, and in writing in French and German. They are now learning Spanish. The other 2 are tots but know English, Hebrew and Ukrainian. This knowledge will enable them to have a greater area to have careers . They have the language key that enable them to open more doors than just having one language.

7. I myself and my husband worked in Unions here in Canada. I csn live a decent life in retirement. Those I know who were not in Unions must work past retirement age. Canada's right wing Conservative goverment would lovebto see Unions disappear.

8.Maternity leave . Watch Michael Moore's SICKO. Canada has paternity leave too.

9. Oligarchy for sure is what the USAmhas. The Conservative government in Canada wants this too. I see many Canadians now speaking out. I am hoping Harper gets voted out. He has is destroying my country.

[calimary]

29. Sometimes I wish I did, too.

[Igel]

44. Languages are another example where context matters.

I've been in places where most people had limited bilingualism. I go 5 blocks and most people are monolingual.

There have been other places where I could go 5 blocks and still find most people were limited bilingual. It really depended where I was.

Scandinavia and Netherlands have small, fairly well-educated populations and economies that are interconnected with other countries'; still, these are countries that are peripheral. Nothing of any great consequence happens in those languages. They need to belong economically, regionally, academically and educationally, so they learn a regional or trade language. Period. Or they're relegated to the sidelines, which means they deal only with their own local populations and economies. Social mobility relies on learning other languages.

Poland and the Czech Republic in the '90s were flirting with this. Most people knew some Russian as a result of that being required in schools. Some avoided it. Some wanted to learn not just "a second language" but German or English. Those were the regional trade languages and would help financially and academically. French, not so much. Spanish and Italian, only if that's where you wanted to work or trade. The first to learn foreign languages were in large touristy retail centers and in trade or academic jobs involving research. Again, first and foremost it was driven by need. Even in retail centers if you asked a question off-topic you'd get blank looks. Fluency, after all, isn't a yes/no binary distinction. You can be colloquially fluent and not understand political rhetoric; you can breeze through a scholarly journal in your field and not be able to read the funnies. Lots of immigrant school students are "fluent" in colloquial English but can't read the textbook or write a decent high-school essay.

The idea of learning languages for "sophistication" is very old fashioned, even in most of Europe. What you get is "need to make money" masquerading under some other facade for the sake of saying social mobility isn't primarily based on money. Because that's just plain mercenary--even in the US saying that somebody's primarily motivation is $ is an insult, so we veil $-based motivations under other names. Scratch most of the US educational equality rhetoric and right under the surface you get either "equal education is important for reducing income inequality" or "it's important for reducing social injustice," which is often just another name for "making sure income's distributed justly."

For the most part, knowing languages other than English in the US gets you not so much, unless, again, you're in a position of having to deal with non-English monolinguals. English is privileged in this way, as, oddly, is Russian in the "Russian world" area and Chinese in the Chinese economic zone, or colonial languages in part of Africa (with Swahili surviving as a kind of regional interlingua in part of the continent).

[elzenmahn]

78. I can only say that at times like this...

...I wish I could consider myself a Canadian.

My wish for my neighbors up north - PLEASE don't fall for the right wing bullshit that we did here in America. We allowed ourselves to be manipulated to the point of our own captivity by the banks and Corporate America.

I'd celebrate the day when you rid yourself of Harper and his cronies. (BTW, can you take Ted Cruz back? I think Teddy Boy and Little Stephen would make a great Odd Couple.)

[riverbendviewgal]

83. no thank you, we don't want Ted .

But we'll take Obama when he finishes up with his time as prez.. all my friends up here really love him.

We are going to work hard to get rid of Harper.

[LibDemAlways]

30. Too many Americans are idiots, racists, homophobes and/or whack-jobs who can't see

beyond their noses. My husband used to work with a guy who resented the ferry system in Washington State because he never used it. Same guy thought it would be cool to work in Maui for awhile, so the company paid for his transfer, and when he realized that Hawaiians lived there - not 'regular white guys' (that's a quote) he came running back.

I befriended an old classmate on FB and was appalled to find out that he's a completely irrational Obama and Muslim hater and homophobe to boot.

Had dinner the other night with another old friend who generally hates unions but happens to be the head of hers. Incredibly self-centered.

Americans don't understand the value of truly rapid, efficient transportation, universal health care, etc. because too many of them are sitting on their asses watching FOX "news," which feeds them a steady stream of bullshit. Even what passes for the mainstream media in this country doesn't present those things in a positive light, and people apparently aren't inquisitive enough to do some research on their own -although they could name each and every Kardashian. The 2014 midterm results suggest that we've become a nation of mindless morons.

[abelenkpe]

33. K&R

[HassleCat]

35. I Wonder

Americans travel to European countries. I see many American tour groups in the large European cities, and even saw a couple in Russia, so I know Americans get outside our borders and see things. The question is, how do they interpret what they see? Do they see the Swiss riding their trains and think, "Thank God we have freeways!" Do they see the shops closed in the early afternoon and think, "These lazy bums sleep all day!" What do they think when they hear students speaking three different languages? It's great when Americans see other countries first hand, but I'm not sure they understand some societies choose a minimum standard of living for everybody over the remote possibility of becoming a millionaire. I get the feeling they make a two week tour of the European cities, visit a couple museums, maybe a castle or two, eat some spicy food, then come back and tell their friends they're glad to be free to watch Fox News.

[treestar]

53. I have known some to

thinks the trains were great and everything. But not enough to demand the same once they get home.

[jeff47]

72. No....

Do they see the Swiss riding their trains and think, "Thank God we have freeways!"

No, they see the dense housing that makes great mass transit possible and say "I'd rather have a yard".

Everything you try to deride involves tradeoffs. Choosing a different tradeoff doesn't make them stupid.

You also have to remember the US government does a terrible job representing what the people want, due to it's two-party system and tiny size relative to the population.

[Buzz Clik]

37. The mass transit concept is solid and works when population density is high.

Mass transit in places like LA and a lot of larger, sprawling Midwestern cities is a huge challenge.

I love the systems in Wash DC, Boston, and and NYC; not so much in Indianapolis and Houston. Chicago's system works along the "El", but the city is so huge, a lot of people struggle getting access.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

41. #4 Mass Transit Is Complicated

I lived in a foreign country with great public transportation and loved it, and I would to see as much mass transportation as "makes sense" in this country.

However, in cities that sprawl, it just doesn't make sense. And some routes that are pushed don't make sense. I'm not going to take a train from Dallas to Houston except under special circumstances, since most times I would have to rent a car. And if I'm just going somewhere to be picked up, I'll take the Megabus. If there is a demand for such transport, transportation like Megabus is a lot cheaper than contracts being awarded to other 1%ers to build a billion dollar train. That's like throwing money down a hole when we could use that money to feed and house people.

[moondust]

42. Yes but

how will any of that speed up the profit taking of the Exceptional American white guy?

[malaise]

43. The current British Prime Minister doesn't appear to understand most of those

[LeftishBrit]

50. Toooooooo true.

And neither did several of his predecessors, notably Maggie Thatcher and - on most of these issues- Tony Blair.

[malaise]

54. Maggie was neo-liberalism on steroids

and Blair's Third way was the same crap.

[Enthusiast]

88. I don't understand how these people continue to get elected.

Baffling.

[Warpy]

45. But this is America! Land of the Free! Home of the Brave!

and the last spot on earth to learn everything the hard way.

[hifiguy]

47. Reality has a hoplessly liberal "bias."

It always has and it always will.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

55. The #1 thing Americans don't understand is that other people don't envy us.

[BeanMusical]

84. Very true. n/t

[Surya Gayatri]

86. Amen!

[Chico Man]

56. Add soccer to this list

Football to the rest of the world.

[DeadLetterOffice]

69. Americans are in fact fucking hopeless about football, is true.

Nor do they grok rugby...

[BlancheSplanchnik]

73. why do the idiots congregate HERE?

What the hell did we do to deserve this?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

85. It's like that, "America: Love it or leave it" thing....

Our Right Wing doesn't have anywhere else to go.

NOBODY in the world wants them.

[nolabels]

81. The one i don't understand, they missed, is about the worship of the greenback

Many large corporations have become pseudo nations. A homogenized world in which money is used as leverage is a problem that is being ignored. It is used to trump and undermine everything on the face of the globe. The majority of world is late to this game and often doesn't even want play in it. As an indoctrinated US resident i can attest that there is major difference the US population and most of the rest of the world in this regard. We, the US don't understand what its like to not live under the gun of money because we have never been able to live it here in quite awhile

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

82. Common sense will get you nowhere with the US masses. Unless you also inject fear.

Americans are (only generally speaking) the biggest lot of morons on the planet. Heavily skewed by the far right, of course.

[father founding]

89. draconian, i say

Other countries have some fucked up laws also, like Canada and Germany.

[Marr]

92. Next time you're outside the country, watch and read their media.

Especially foreign versions of US media-- like CNN International. It's truly surreal just how differently the same stories are presented by the same company when inside the US. Most of these things Americans don't understand are very much by design.

Just to offer a quick example I can recall off the top of my head. Back in 2005 or so, I was in a US airport, watching CNN. It was a roundtable discussion about the costs of the war in Iraq. Everyone on the panel agreed that the cost was nothing to worry about, since the US deficit was only... I don't recall the exact number, but it was something like 8% of GDP.

A few hours later, I'd was in Europe and watching CNNi. The roundtable discussion there was about France's standing in the EU, and every single person on the panel agreed that France had a terrible economy, and they obviously needed to slash social services of every kind to counter their disastrous deficit, because it was a whopping, shameful, unsustainable 3% of GDP.