A Month Old

If hindsight is 20/20, then the view of the US from Scotland, while not perfect, does provide a new vantage point to see America. With that newness has come revelation. I am only a month old in this grey land but my study abroad semester has provided me with a unique way of critiquing America: a Scottish one. I am neither Scottish nor do I pretend to be, but living here has concentrated my thinking and turned typical gripes somehow salient; there is another non-American way of doing things. Compared to America, Scottish life is based on a patently different set of values; national policy and personal choice largely these values. This rainy country of five million upholds healthcare as a right, minimum wage provides enough for the poor to live, higher education is affordable, and violent crime is rare. Yes, partisan debates rage in Parliament, rugby die-hards pummel one another at the pub, many dentists have begun to privatize, and there are flaws in the system, but basic services persist. Scots assume that humans have inalienable rights; a familiar word in America but one that looks very different here.
In 1998-1999, one third of Scotland’s entire national budget, £5 billion, was dedicated to healthcare. In the United States, hundreds of billions of dollars are spent every day on military defense. At first, comparing the world’s fumbling superpower with a small country that is still part of a kingdom seems totally absurd yet it is not the numbers themselves that are telling but the thoughts they represent. Fiscal policy is indicative of what is important to a country’s citizens. In the U.S., when issues become priorities the money is made available. To cite the obvious examples, after hurricane Katrina, September 11, or the invasion of Iraq, money was allocated according to national opinion and political directives. How money is spent reflects the priorities of a nation.
The United States national budget balloons annually into the trillions while Scotland’s pales in comparison. America does have a very different role in the world and it is undoubtedly a more expensive one. Yet, the implications of national spending stand. In the U.S. the privatized healthcare system leaves the poor, elderly, and unemployed to fend for themselves. There is Medicare and Medicaid but because of inhumane levels of federal funding, massive demand, and a cracking system, millions of Americans go without proper healthcare each year. Why such programs are poorly funded remains highly contentious and like the comparison of the budgets, an oversimplified analysis is not the point. Budgetary policy in America and the endless attempts at explaining a fractured system do not entertain the Scots. From across the pond, there is no acceptable explanation as to why anyone would go without healthcare because it is seen as a right. From here, healthcare in America appears to be a privilege. Dr. Huw Davies’, professor of health care policy and management at the University of St. Andrews, simple answer to a simple question is telling. When asked if all Americans are entitled to healthcare he simply answered “No.”
Davies’ answer to a follow up question is equally telling. When asked what a nationalized healthcare system says about a society Davies shed his concision but retained his prescience answering: “That health care is a right, and that collective provision, risk-sharing, and contributions based on ability to pay or similar is a practical and fair mechanism; not always - but largely better than any alternative if equity/access are important values.” As a well-informed academic and consultant at the policy setting level Davies answer serves as a litmus test for much of the country. His curt response to the first question and well informed answer to the second is largely indicative of the way most Scots think. Here, even the poor, are provided healthcare. Cutting the fat, his answer probes at one of the main differences that has pervaded my observations so far: the domestic priorities of America are different than in Scotland. Worst of all, from the view point of the Scots, healthcare ought not to be political issue or ideological battlepoint. Their lives bear this out and their observations continually reaffirm their understanding of the U.S. as an upper-class-preferential society.
After all, it is the citizens themselves who fund all of the nationalized systems. The people elect the politicians who allocate the funds and national decisions do mirror public sentiment. Consistent with that national sentiment is the lack of bickering over taxes that, when compared to America is unfathomably high. Each time you make a purchase in Scotland, you are charged 17 percent sales tax. In New York City, one of the most expensive cities in the world, tax is 8.25 percent. Across Scotland each month, if you are a full time resident, you pay estate tax for the collection of your trash. If you own a car you pay road tax. We pay taxes in America but there is a consistent tension nationwide about whether or not they are too high. Nationally they choose to focus more on education than military spending and as individuals they don’t gripe about the high percentage of taxes that are removed each month. Here, citizens believe in the public systems.
The United States is a massive country with the world’s largest consumer economy plagued by an ever-growing partisan political split. Scotland is a small country known for whisky, bag pipes and a Mel Gibson movie. Ceaseless fog has not left me foolishly comparing apples and oranges. Yet a change of viewpoint can make even the most complex issues simple. People deserve healthcare. In Scotland, that belief is upheld as a right and is indicative of a deep-seeded cultural belief that regardless of class, race, or religion, all people are entitled to certain things and the state will provide them free of charge for all. In America we don’t put our money where our mouth is.