NationStates Jolt Archive

Americans live shorter lives than citizens of almost every other developed nation, according to a report from several US charities.

The report found that the US ranked 42nd in the world for life expectancy despite spending more on health care per person than any other country.

Among other findings:

Of the world's richest nations, the US has the most children (15%) living in poverty
Of the OECD nations, the US has the most people in prison - as a percentage and in absolute numbers
25% of 15-year-old students performed at or below the lowest level in an international maths test - worse than Canada, France, Germany and Japan
If the US infant mortality rate were equal to first-ranked Sweden, more than 20,000 babies would survive beyond their first year of life

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7511426.stm

If the USA is spending more per person on health care than any other country, why is it not seeing the results in terms of the well-being of its citizens? Would a nationalised health service be better for the United States or, if not, which of the two main party candidates in the coming election will be best for the US on health, and why?

If the USA is spending more per person on health care than any other country, why is it not seeing the results in terms of the well-being of its citizens?

Because quantity matters, but quality matters more.

When was life in the US considered "really" good?

I never considered it "really" good. Just good. Could be worse, could be better.

Yes it is. We have freedoms that other people don't we also choose our head of state. Also, if everyone compares what they have mainly to the US that means something. You know we are like the toyota of the car industry. F.E. Denmark has free college and pays parents they compare that to the U.S. where that doesn't happen. But in reality We have 10x the population so that would be simply impossible.

But you determine your own life by your own decisions. you get oppertunities that other places don't

The U.S is brilliant if you're wealthy and have no conscience.

the U.s Is Brilliant If You're Wealthy And Have No Conscience. ^ Qft.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7511426.stm

If the USA is spending more per person on health care than any other country, why is it not seeing the results in terms of the well-being of its citizens? Would a nationalised health service be better for the United States or, if not, which of the two main party candidates in the coming election will be best for the US on health, and why?

There are a number of extra stresses in our society, a number of which are indirectly caused by our foolish continounce of the whole "states rights" crap when it comes to governing. Education, for example, is held to different standards in every single state. So is healthcare. So are environmental regulations. So are a number of other things that directly impact our life expectancy.

To be honest, I'm amazed we're number 42.

Yes, life in the US is good. You should see the line of people waiting to get in.

a better question would be "is it really worth giving up all that these countries did to increase life expectancy by a couple (probably miserable) years?"


In my opinion there is no right or wrong answer to this, people and cultures will vary, and to say that necessarily one way of living is better than another, is a little off. Surely some people don't mind having a little more freedom at a cost- for those who don't they can just move somewhere else.

also to answer your question: yes it is ;)

Yes it is. We have freedoms that other people don't we also choose our head of state. Also, if everyone compares what they have mainly to the US that means something. You know we are like the toyota of the car industry. F.E. Denmark has free college and pays parents they compare that to the U.S. where that doesn't happen. But in reality We have 10x the population so that would be simply impossible.


iirc the op was about healthcare, not freedoms or elections.

also, if the US raised the taxes to the same amount of Denmark, or of Germany, there could be free college for everyone in the US too, expecially since the prices in the US are lesser than in Germany or Denmark.

it's just a matter of different social models. in the US you pay less taxes and get much less from the State: in Europe you pay more taxes and get much more from the State (unless you live in Italy or Greece, that is).

btw France elects directly the head of state, too, and has better life standards than the US (buying power, minimum wages, workers' rights, education and access thereto...)

Yes, life in the US is good. You should see the line of people waiting to get in.

That's due to good PR, not good quality of life.:rolleyes:

That's due to good PR, not good quality of life.:rolleyes:

Yet they stay.

Yet they stay.

Can you blame them for preferring mud to shit?

Yes it is. We have freedoms that other people don't we also choose our head of state. Also, if everyone compares what they have mainly to the US that means something. You know we are like the toyota of the car industry. F.E. Denmark has free college and pays parents they compare that to the U.S. where that doesn't happen. But in reality We have 10x the population so that would be simply impossible.

But you determine your own life by your own decisions. you get oppertunities that other places don't

not true. The us could easily adopt policies such as those in places with lower economies if were to scale back on certain things (such as its war in Iraq and afganistan) that are costing the American economy badly.

Can you blame them for preferring mud to shit?

Odd that the line consists of many of virtually every Nation on the Planet isnt it.

Yes it is. We have freedoms that other people don't we also choose our head of state. Also, if everyone compares what they have mainly to the US that means something. You know we are like the toyota of the car industry. F.E. Denmark has free college and pays parents they compare that to the U.S. where that doesn't happen. But in reality We have 10x the population so that would be simply impossible.

But you determine your own life by your own decisions. you get oppertunities that other places don't

Well, according to The Economist's Democracy Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index) The US are 17th with a score of 8.22.

Not bad, but could be better, no?

Odd that the line consists of many of virtually every Nation on the Planet isnt it.

Have you ever visited Western Europe?

a better question would be "is it really worth giving up all that these countries did to increase life expectancy by a couple (probably miserable) years?"


In my opinion there is no right or wrong answer to this, people and cultures will vary, and to say that necessarily one way of living is better than another, is a little off. Surely some people don't mind having a little more freedom at a cost- for those who don't they can just move somewhere else.

also to answer your question: yes it is ;)

rrrr what exactly did those countries give up.

Have you ever visited Western Europe?

And that has what to do with my point again?

Because quantity matters, but quality matters more.

Really? So...what are you saying, then, if the OP says the US is behind in both?

Yes, life in the US is good. You should see the line of people waiting to get in.

That line is not overwhelmingly populated with people from Sweden, the UK, Denmark, France, or most of the nations on the OP list that are ahead of the US. That line is mostly full of people looking for jobs from countries much worse off than the US (Mexico, much of Africa, etc.). And unless you've not been paying attention, much of the US isn't really glad that the ones in line are here, and are positively livid about the ones not bothering with the line.

Yes it is. We have freedoms that other people don't we also choose our head of state. Also, if everyone compares what they have mainly to the US that means something. You know we are like the toyota of the car industry. F.E. Denmark has free college and pays parents they compare that to the U.S. where that doesn't happen. But in reality We have 10x the population so that would be simply impossible.

But you determine your own life by your own decisions. you get opportunities that other places don't

Decent point (bad analogy, though, if the US were like Toyota, everyone would be taken care of instead of going without) except for the bolded bit. Name one country ahead of us from the OP that doesn't elect it's leader.

It's probably better than most of the world outside of Western Europe and Canada, let's be honest.

Decent point (bad analogy, though, if the US were like Toyota, everyone would be taken care of instead of going without) except for the bolded bit. Name one country ahead of us from the OP that doesn't elect it's leader.

It does suggest that whilst other countries compare themselves to the U.S, the U.S is comparing itself to Saudi Arabia.

Name one country ahead of us from the OP that doesn't elect it's leader.

Technically speaking various many countries (most notably the Commonwealth ones) don't elect their head of state, since it's still the Queen. Though for all intents and purposes this is a formality and she exercises no direct power.

Wow, I've been away, new smilies, I feel like a ten post newb all over again.

:soap:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7511426.stm

If the USA is spending more per person on health care than any other country, why is it not seeing the results in terms of the well-being of its citizens? Would a nationalised health service be better for the United States or, if not, which of the two main party candidates in the coming election will be best for the US on health, and why?

I just bought two frozen pizzas, so yes.

That's due to good PR, not good quality of life.:rolleyes:

ooo, thats low. Actually from what I can tell, the U.S. Receives mostly bad PR, from the most of the U.N., from about half of its own population, and from snooty Europeans. We are the scapegoat of the world community.

The main problem with America is that too many people don't know how to handle financial freedom. Some people just rack up so much debt. And the politicians are torn between giving more freedom to the people who deserve it, and bailing the less responsible out of trouble.

And that has what to do with my point again?

It has because for the wealth it has, the US is doing really rather poorly compared to Western Europe. It's not that the US is nominally worse than most other places, it's that for the wealth it has it is relatively far worse than any first world country.

It has because for the wealth it has, the US is doing really rather poorly compared to Western Europe. It's not that the US is nominally worse than most other places, it's that for the wealth it has it is relatively far worse than any first world country.

Well if you measure quality of life by what the government can provide for you, then yes, Europe is much better. But if you measure quality of life by how much of your paycheck you get to keep and do whatever you damn well please with, then, well, you see my point.

We are the scapegoat of the world community.

Not the scapegoat. The scourge.

Well if you measure quality of life by what the government can provide for you, then yes, Europe is much better. But if you measure quality of life by how much of your paycheck you get to keep and do whatever you damn well please with, then, well, you see my point.

Or you measure quality of life by the results of those systems?

ooo, thats low. Actually from what I can tell, the U.S. Receives mostly bad PR, from the most of the U.N., from about half of its own population, and from snooty Europeans. We are the scapegoat of the world community.

The main problem with America is that too many people don't know how to handle financial freedom. Some people just rack up so much debt. And the politicians are torn between giving more freedom to the people who deserve it, and bailing the less responsible out of trouble.

Oh come on, as if poor Mexicans and Africans, really know what the UN, the local American press, and snooty Europeans think. I'm talking Hollywood, McDonalds... cultural influence and all that. And they all portray an unrealistic image of America, of which these people who queue up, simply cannot be informed any better.

And the other problem with America is that those people who know how to handle economic freedom, abuse it.

Well if you measure quality of life by what the government can provide for you, then yes, Europe is much better. But if you measure quality of life by how much of your paycheck you get to keep and do whatever you damn well please with, then, well, you see my point.

So we are correct to say that Europe has high quality of life, and the US has high quality of life for the rich?

Not the scapegoat. The scourge.

see, thats what I'm talking about. Sigh, we should have never gotten involved in WW2. Thats right, oh yeah, I went there.

see, thats what I'm talking about. Sigh, we should have never gotten involved in WW2. Thats right, oh yeah, I went there.

And Fass the straw-man comes to the rescue :rolleyes:

see, thats what I'm talking about. Sigh, we should have never gotten involved in WW2. Thats right, oh yeah, I went there.

It just betrays how lacking in arguments you are.

ooo, thats low. Actually from what I can tell, the U.S. Receives mostly bad PR, from the most of the U.N., from about half of its own population, and from snooty Europeans. We are the scapegoat of the world community.

Yah. I'd say more than half of our population. And how can you say we aren't the scapegoats? Food shortages? Oh, it's because America is making more corn for ethanol. Oil shortages? Oh, it's because the U.S. consumes so much.

The main problem with America is that too many people don't know how to handle financial freedom. Some people just rack up so much debt. And the politicians are torn between giving more freedom to the people who deserve it, and bailing the less responsible out of trouble.

QFT^

The entire reason we have a problem in the housing market is because people got greedy, bought houses beyond their means, and the stupid fucking companies accepted them.
I'm all for helping people in need, but lots of the US needs to learn that they can actually do things themselves without the government.
God forbid, I know.

As an aside...could the OP find the statistics for before Bush?

The U.S is brilliant if you're wealthy and have no conscience.

Best description of the states ever.

Don't forget that the US is considered one of the most obese nations in the world.
The foods you eat have a lot to do with quality and length of life, no?
I guess an abundance of cheap, unhealthy foods is partially to blame, and then you have those who overindulge in said foods...

So we are correct to say that Europe has high quality of life, and the US has high quality of life for the rich?

Not at all, for one, America has a large and well-to-do middle class. And for two, do you even know how poverty is defined in America? Did you know that 95% of households in poverty in America have cable tv, refrigerators and microwaves? The truth is, gasp, taxes and government programs (not talking about health care) intended to help the poor actually lower the standard of living for everyone. The most object poverty in America exists where the government has been the most involved. Inner cities, local projects and Native American Reservations.

Don't forget that the US is considered one of the most obese nations in the world.
The foods you eat have a lot to do with quality and length of life, no?
I guess an abundance of cheap, unhealthy foods is partially to blame, and then you have those who overindulge in said foods...

It's more an abundance of lazy bastards who prefer mcfood to cooking... ;)

The whole problem with the housing market is that bankers offered unsustainable products to financially illiterate Americans, then banded these products together as "secure" assets and sold them to each other until the whole clusterfuck went boom. As I said, the problem isn't the people who don't know what to do with their financial freedom, but those who do and abuse it.

Not at all, for one, America has a large and well-to-do middle class.

Relatively speaking, due to the restructuring of the Global economy, your vaunted Middle Class, is actually a Working class that happens to do services, because Industry has been outsourced. Question is, how well do these "middle-classes" compare to the Middle-classes of the rest of the First World. And then to the respective Working-classes.

And for two, do you even know how poverty is defined in America? Did you know that 95% of households in poverty in America have cable tv, refrigerators and microwaves?

And where is that not the case in the First world?

The truth is, gasp, taxes and government programs (not talking about health care) intended to help the poor actually lower the standard of living for everyone. The most object poverty in America exists where the government has been the most involved. Inner cities, local projects and Native American Reservations.

Non-sequitur.

It's more an abundance of lazy bastards who prefer mcfood to cooking... ;)

Exactly what I mean.

Yes it is. We have freedoms that other people don't we also choose our head of state.

ask a dumb question: what freedoms do you have that i don't have (apart from the obvious: i didn't elect the queen*)


*but i'd scrap the monarchy in a heartbeat if i could; its only saving grace is the queen is largely just for show and exercises no real political power

Well if you measure quality of life by what the government can provide for you, then yes, Europe is much better. But if you measure quality of life by how much of your paycheck you get to keep and do whatever you damn well please with, then, well, you see my point.

Is it really all that different?
http://www.worldwide-tax.com/index.asp#partthree

Yes, life in the US is good. You should see the line of people waiting to get in.

Well... The line to get to the EU is long about the same.
Your point?

Well... The line to get to the EU is long about the same.
Your point?

US is a country. EU is a continent and then some. Apples and Oranges.

It's probably better than most of the world outside of Western Europe and Canada, let's be honest.

Uh...isn't that pretty much what the OP is saying?

Not at all, for one, America has a large and well-to-do middle class. And for two, do you even know how poverty is defined in America? Did you know that 95% of households in poverty in America have cable tv, refrigerators and microwaves? The truth is, gasp, taxes and government programs (not talking about health care) intended to help the poor actually lower the standard of living for everyone. The most object poverty in America exists where the government has been the most involved. Inner cities, local projects and Native American Reservations.

Actually it is about the same here in Europe.
A recent report has shown that the percentage of people having problems to put toghether a meal is higher than the percentage of TV, cell-phone or refrigerator owners.

Not at all, for one, America has a large and well-to-do middle class. And for two, do you even know how poverty is defined in America? Did you know that 95% of households in poverty in America have cable tv, refrigerators and microwaves? The truth is, gasp, taxes and government programs (not talking about health care) intended to help the poor actually lower the standard of living for everyone. The most object poverty in America exists where the government has been the most involved. Inner cities, local projects and Native American Reservations.

It's all in the tax returns, babay, the tax returns.

US is a country. EU is a continent and then some. Apples and Oranges.

Not really...
Actually the EU is MUCH LESS than the continent of Europe.
Actually the Immigration policy of the EU is being coordinated centrally due to the Schengen Agreements.

rrrr what exactly did those countries give up.

As others have pointed out economic freedom. To do whatever you want with the money you make, instead of the government deciding it'd really be better for you to do something else with it.

I don't really know yet, but it's getting worse and worse by the year

In terms of health care results, creature comforts, public education, political freedom, economic stability, and other such measures, the US is miles ahead of many other countries. Look at the state of Zimbabwe's economy. Look at the political freedoms in Myanmar. Look at Afghanistan's child health care - it's still pretty crappy.

I mean, really, if we compare the US to the rest of the world, rather than, say, the First World, it really doesn't look like such a tough life.

As others have pointed out economic freedom. To do whatever you want with the money you make, instead of the government deciding it'd really be better for you to do something else with it.

More like Europe countries spend their tax money on their citizens rather than silly wars in Iraq. (Oh Yeah... I went there)

US is a country. EU is a continent and then some. Apples and Oranges.

area of the EU: 4,324,782 km²
area of the US: 9,826,630 km²

the EU being a continent doesn't make too much difference. if anything it'd be harder to get in due to the many varying immigration policies of member states.

and just to back up the earlier statement, immigration to the US according to http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/imm_net_mig-immigration-net-migration&b_map=1 the levels of yearly net migration in EU member states (sum) and in the US seem fairly similar.

Between the US and UK, I'll take the UK anyday.

As others have pointed out economic freedom. To do whatever you want with the money you make, instead of the government deciding it'd really be better for you to do something else with it.

Ireland
Democracy Index rank 11 (U.S. 17)
Economic Freedom rank 3 (U.S. 5)
United Nations Life expectancy at birth rank 29 (U.S. 38)

Yes it is. We have freedoms that other people don't we also choose our head of state. Also, if everyone compares what they have mainly to the US that means something. You know we are like the toyota of the car industry. F.E. Denmark has free college and pays parents they compare that to the U.S. where that doesn't happen. But in reality We have 10x the population so that would be simply impossible.

But you determine your own life by your own decisions. you get oppertunities that other places don't

You realize the freedom of "choosing your head of state" isn't very unique right? We're far from the only one's that do, and it certainly doesn't necessitate life in the US being good.

Right, so shouldn't we have 10X the money to afford such a program?

Yes, life in the US is good. You should see the line of people waiting to get in.

Right, so by your standards, Pakistan, Syria, and Iran are also great places to live seeing as there so many people trying to get in.

Not at all, for one, America has a large and well-to-do middle class. And for two, do you even know how poverty is defined in America? Did you know that 95% of households in poverty in America have cable tv, refrigerators and microwaves? The truth is, gasp, taxes and government programs (not talking about health care) intended to help the poor actually lower the standard of living for everyone. The most object poverty in America exists where the government has been the most involved. Inner cities, local projects and Native American Reservations.

What government involvement has there been in inner cities, I'd like to hear about it. And what do you mean by local projects?

You know, it's difficult to answer the question in the OP, because it really all depends on your context, and the experience you've had outside of the US (or Canada). I can say with certainty that some parts of living in my country are really so good, compared to other countries...and other parts are not so great.

What I can't abide is people who have never travelled, either out of the US, or to the US (if they live elsewhere) talking smack. I mean, sure talk smack about the politics and what have you...you probably wouldn't want to live in Darfur right now obviously...but if you have no idea what it's actually like in a country (US or otherwise), shut up about it. Please.

Boom botta bing: EU vs. U.S. the ultimate showdown!

From The Economist:

EU vs USA
June 20, 2004 10:33 AM RSS feed for this thread Subscribe
Europe versus America (PDF) is a report by a Swedish public policy institute comparing the two economies, concluding that "If the European Union were a state in the USA it would belong to the poorest group of states." The WSJ has read the report, and highlights that "Most Americans have a standard of living which the majority of Europeans will never come anywhere near [...]. in the U.S. a large 45.9% of the 'poor' own their homes, 72.8% have a car and almost 77% have air conditioning, which remains a luxury in most of Western Europe. The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor, is 1,000 square feet.". With a looming demographic crisis in Europe to boot, will the EU be able to implement much-needed reforms to save their welfare-state system before it is too late?

link (http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf)

1) The date of the thing.

2) The publisher = the bias.

3) Quality v. Quantity. Economic "standard of living" != quality of life.

1) The date of the thing.

2) The publisher = the bias.

3) Quality v. Quantity. Economic "standard of living" != quality of life.

Fair enough, I just don't want to hear anymore of this "Europe is awesome, America is a hellhole" nonsense. Some people on this forum are very hostile towards anything American.

Boom botta bing: EU vs. U.S. the ultimate showdown!

From The Economist:



link (http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf)

Yeah, people in Scotland don't own air conditioning. They're so deprived! The poor in London don't spend large amounts of their income on cars but instead have to send their kids to school for free on the almost door-to-door mass transit. How shocking!

What pathetic indicators.

Boom botta bing: EU vs. U.S. the ultimate showdown!

From The Economist:



link (http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf)

well, they compare the entire EU and sometimes even the entire Europe, allot of the nations in the EU are actually pretty poor in comparison, for example Poland, and the survey was done in 2004, EU has growled in allot of areas where the us actually have gotten worse. and cars aren't needed as much in Europe as in USA we have good bus lines and subways. I actually know some people here in Sweden who own a car and are rich enough to drive it to work but still choose the bus because its more comfortable, and air conditioning? well the temperature rarely goes above room temperature, so you don't need cooling, you need heating and I can assure you that 99% of the houses here in Sweden have heating.

Yeah, people in Scotland don't own air conditioning. They're so deprived! The poor in London don't spend large amounts of their income on cars but instead have to send their kids to school for free on the almost door-to-door mass transit. How shocking!

What pathetic indicators.

Ac is kind of a bad indicator for northern Europe, as there is really no need for it. And while cars are not a necessity in most of Europe, they are more of a luxury.

But what about the other indicators? Washing machines, microwaves, televisions, home size, and my favorite, personal computers, which according to the survey, America has about twice the % of PC owners as most European countries. Go Microsoft.

I don't mean to say that your life would be meaningless and pathetic without a dishwasher, but the point the article is making, is that Americans generally have more disposable income, which is a huge indicator of wealth and happiness.

in the U.S. a large 45.9% of the 'poor' own their homes

Yeah, how is that credit bubble crunch going for them, eh? "Own their homes" apparently equals "living beyond their means on sub-prime loans that are demonstrably insupportable".

in the U.S. a large 45.9% of the 'poor' own their homes

Yeah, how is that credit bubble crunch going for them, eh? "Own their homes" apparently equals "living beyond their means on sub-prime loans that are demonstrably insupportable".

someone who has a mortgage, does not own their home.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7511426.stm

If the USA is spending more per person on health care than any other country, why is it not seeing the results in terms of the well-being of its citizens
Because of half the money is spent on paying insurance clerk wages and dividends to their stock-holders. [/smart-alecky comment]

someone who has a mortgage, does not own their home.

Tell that to the poor of the USA. Oh, wait... the banks already are. :)

Responding to the Opening Post:

Yes, life in the US really is that good. My family members have had extensive contact with the third world -- and by extensive, I mean years living in third world countries. Not only that, but I have several close relatives who have traveled in/lived in Europe extensively. They all agree: in certain particular aspects, other countries have better quality of life than we do. However, each of those countries has many other aspects that are worse than the US. Can we improve? Yes. Should we improve? Most definitely, yes. But with only a few exceptions, we already have built a country where people have life, liberty, and freedom to pursue happiness. We can still do better -- but we are already better off than most of the world's current population, and most of the human population throughout history.

Americans live shorter lives than citizens of almost every other developed nation, according to a report from several US charities.

That would be largely because of our lifestyle choices: lots of sugar and fat and junk food, low exercise, widespread tobacco use. Also consider the high numbers who immigrate into America from other countries with less healthy environs. Such immigrants may often have shorter lives due to previous poor healthcare, and will tip the statistic downwards.



The report found that the US ranked 42nd in the world for life expectancy despite spending more on health care per person than any other country.



The statistics I found on indexmunid.com and the CIA World factbook rank us 45th -- but the difference between the leader (Andorra) and the US is small:
Andorra -- 83.53 year life expectancy.
America -- 78.14 year life expectancy.

That's a little less than 5 and 1/2 years.

Also, we have a large and diverse population and an unusually high infant mortality rate -- and since infant deaths shows up as a 0 year life on most studies, every infant death has a disproportionately large impact on the statistic.



* Of the world's richest nations, the US has the most children (15%) living in poverty



What definition of poverty? By all means, we should help the poor here in the US. But remember that poor people in the US have as much as the very, very wealthy in Honduras or other countries like it. So we should still help them, but those 15% in the OP are not starving.



* Of the OECD nations, the US has the most people in prison - as a percentage and in absolute numbers



That is definitely an area we could work on. That being said, (mostly out of curiosity) to what do you (the opening poster, Philosophy) attribute the abundance of people in US prisons? Do you attribute it to a high crime rate, a harsh judicial system, or what? Perhaps I should simply ask: what is the exact connection between lots of people in prison and the quality of life in the US? Does the prison system have anything to do with the healthcare?



* 25% of 15-year-old students performed at or below the lowest level in an international maths test - worse than Canada, France, Germany and Japan



An area that needs a lot of improvement. I'm betting that our highest scorers probably did worse than other nations as well (although that wasn't stated in the statistic). It seems to me that many of our education systems on both the grade and college level are as concerned with political indoctrination as with actual education. What happened to educating voters so that they could make their own choices? Plus our standardized tests as a rule are either so easy that they give no motivation or so hard that teachers spend all their time teaching how to pass the test, which decoheres the actual curricula material.

Once again, I would ask (mostly out of curiosity) what connection would you (the opening poster, Philosophy) draw between quality of life here and academic performance (I'm not denying that there is one, I just want elucidation on what's on your mind).



* If the US infant mortality rate were equal to first-ranked Sweden, more than 20,000 babies would survive beyond their first year of life



Swedish infant mortality rate in 2007 2.76 deaths/1,000 live
US infant mortality rate in 2003: 6.75 deaths/1,000 live births.
US infant mortality rate in 2007: 6.37 deaths/ 1,000 live births.

Clearly, there is room for improvement. But we ARE improving -- improving fairly rapidly.

(Unless otherwise noted, all demographic statistics came from the CIA World Factbook)



If the USA is spending more per person on health care than any other country, why is it not seeing the results in terms of the well-being of its citizens?



I challenge your assumption that we are 'not seeing the results.' We have excellent life expectancy, only 5 and 1/2 years behind the world leader. Our life expectancy at birth is up by exactly 1 year (from 77.14) over the last five years. Our citizens live long lives; they have great quality of life while alive.



Would a nationalised health service be better for the United States ...



No. There are a few circumstances in which nationalized health care works -- but there are many in which it does not. America is too large, her people too stubborn and independent, and her government too inefficient and large to handle it. Even if you cut all military spending whatsoever, we would not be able to provide the same quality of care that the majority of Americans now have. Furthermore, not only would a nationalized health service further strain the economy, it would decrease the amount of economic strength the US draws from the economy. We would be weakening our economy at the same time as placing an increased strain upon it -- sort of like loading more luggage into a car while popping one tire, and then expecting the car to run better than before.



... or, if not, which of the two main party candidates in the coming election will be best for the US on health, and why?



I'm not sure which would be better, I haven't finished reading both of their position papers yet. (And on top of that, I still need to analyze their past votes and other political actions to see whether the position papers actually represent what they will do or whether the papers are simply feel-good fluff).
So no comment. Sorry.



One final note in passing.

Not the scapegoat. The scourge.

We're not so bad, as a quick google search will reveal. Not perfect, but despite being the scapegoat and perhaps the scourge, we do a lot of good. Perhaps more good than bad.

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

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-25-charitable_N.htm

http://www.jonholato.com/2007/06/26/us-more-charitable-than-any-other-country/

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682100&page=1

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/233106/america_the_most_charitable_nation.html

http://www.finlandforthought.net/2006/12/11/the-most-charitable-people-in-america-today-are-the-working-poor/

http://www.incharacter.org/article.php?article=64

What I can't abide is people who have never travelled, either out of the US, or to the US (if they live elsewhere) talking smack.

this. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=4mCDZMWVWuc)

The one thing I hate about the US? Talk shows like Jerry Springer. Such pap.

this. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=4mCDZMWVWuc)

"If this is evolution in terms of political candidates, in twelve years, we're going to be voting for plants."

-- Lewis Black

US is a country. EU is a continent and then some. Apples and Oranges.Not really. You're comparing two entities that lack systematic border controls within their borders and have comparably sized borders and populations. Comparing the US to Spain, now that would be comparing apples and oranges. The only country developed less than itself that Spain borders on is Portugal, and all Portuguese have permanent residence in Spain already. And yet, despite a lack of borders with underdeveloped countries, Spain is second in immigration.

Fair enough, I just don't want to hear anymore of this "Europe is awesome, America is a hellhole" nonsense. Some people on this forum are very hostile towards anything American.

America isn't a hellhole. Though I do think most people have a problem with the disparity between the "We're the greatest country in the World" and the actual reality.

America is fairly good, but for its potential it should be so much more. And that is my problem.

"Most Americans have a standard of living which the majority of Europeans will never come anywhere near [...]. in the U.S. a large 45.9% of the 'poor' own their homes, 72.8% have a car and almost 77% have air conditioning, which remains a luxury in most of Western Europe. The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor, is 1,000 square feet.". With a looming demographic crisis in Europe to boot, will the EU be able to implement much-needed reforms to save their welfare-state system before it is too late?

Well, comparing US to European air conditioning isn't a fair measure of standard of living - we don't exactly need it most of Europe.

But what about the other indicators? Washing machines, microwaves, televisions, home size, and my favorite, personal computers, which according to the survey, America has about twice the % of PC owners as most European countries. Go Microsoft.

I don't mean to say that your life would be meaningless and pathetic without a dishwasher, but the point the article is making, is that Americans generally have more disposable income, which is a huge indicator of wealth and happiness.

Maybe to Americans. Europe is generally a lot less materialistic and Europeans tend to contribute much less in the way of both hours and effort to their work (something dealt with in the libertarian paper you linked to by making the spurious claim that these hours are occupied by other kinds of work). I'm not trying to say America is hell, but I don't agree that it's the best country in the world to live in.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7511426.stm

If the USA is spending more per person on health care than any other country, why is it not seeing the results in terms of the well-being of its citizens? Would a nationalised health service be better for the United States or, if not, which of the two main party candidates in the coming election will be best for the US on health, and why?

The 'free-market' doesn't work with healthcare. America has determined... nay, steeled itself to defeat that little truth, and are sticking with it with a grim determination despite alol evidence to the contrary.

A nationalised healthcare model would be both better, and cheaper.

Boom botta bing: EU vs. U.S. the ultimate showdown!

EU vs USA
June 20, 2004 10:33 AM RSS feed for this thread Subscribe
Europe versus America (PDF) is a report by a Swedish public policy institute comparing the two economies, concluding that "If the European Union were a state in the USA it would belong to the poorest group of states." The WSJ has read the report, and highlights that "Most Americans have a standard of living which the majority of Europeans will never come anywhere near [...]. in the U.S. a large 45.9% of the 'poor' own their homes, 72.8% have a car and almost 77% have air conditioning, which remains a luxury in most of Western Europe. The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor, is 1,000 square feet.". With a looming demographic crisis in Europe to boot, will the EU be able to implement much-needed reforms to save their welfare-state system before it is too late?

link (http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf)

Air conditioning would be a luxury item for a lot of Europeans, for most of their year. For some - it would be not only luxury, but pointless.

Owning a car is an interesting measure. I lived in the UK for 25 years and didn't learn to drive while I lived there. I didn't need a car for work, there is nowhere I can't get to with public transport and a bit of walking and - to be honest - in cities, a car is much MUCH more hassle than it's worth (My housemate owned a car, and it took him longer to get TO his car, than my busride to work was).

I'm not sure what the advantage was supposed to be in terms of square-footage of house areas. European homes tend to be a few hundred feet smaller than their American compatriots? And? Where's the advantage. In the UK, they're even smaller than the European average. Why? Because lots of places in Europe (especially the UK) are full of people, while the US is still mostly empty.

The whole report looks like someone desperately trying to justify something by appealing to anything that looked like it could be portrayed as a positive.

On the other hand, US healthcare is more expensive and less avilable, and the US has a GINI that is comparable to sub-Saharan Africa...

The 'free-market' doesn't work with healthcare. America has determined... nay, steeled itself to defeat that little truth, and are sticking with it with a grim determination despite alol evidence to the contrary.

A nationalised healthcare model would be both better, and cheaper.

Here's a link that describes why the free market system can not satisfy the requirements of a healthcare program.

http://www.oheschools.org/ohech3pg2.html

Having said that, I don't know which of the candidates will do the best job of moving the USA towards a more intelligent health care system. To be honest, Clinton was the only one who looked like she actually had a plan. Obama seems to think that hope should be good enough. The Republican candidate will simply ignore economic reality, I assume.

Here's a link that describes why the free market system can not satisfy the requirements of a healthcare program.

http://www.oheschools.org/ohech3pg2.html

Having said that, I don't know which of the candidates will do the best job of moving the USA towards a more intelligent health care system. To be honest, Clinton was the only one who looked like she actually had a plan. Obama seems to think that hope should be good enough. The Republican candidate will simply ignore economic reality, I assume.

Neither of the current candidates will do much that is useful, in terms of healthcare. In THIS political climate, it would be about impossible to get anyone who WOULD do something about it, into a candidate position.

The best we can hope for is some sort of 'universal' system. Maybe. Which still won't fix where the US model is broken.

America isn't a hellhole. Though I do think most people have a problem with the disparity between the "We're the greatest country in the World" and the actual reality.

America is fairly good, but for its potential it should be so much more. And that is my problem.
If you think America isn't living up to its potential then do something about it instead of bitching about how we could be doing better. At the very least propose something, some way you think we could be doing a certain thing better so that it can be examined with a cost-benefit analysis to see if it would really be better.

I think that we really are the greatest country on the whole damn planet because no other country has more power, wealth, and freedom all in one. America is a kick-ass place to live and anyone who says different, in my opinion, has never been here or doesn't know what they're talking about. AMERICA FUCK YEAH!

Is the US the only first world country without universal health care?

...America is a kick-ass place to live and anyone who says different...

probably had to file bankruptcy because someone in their family got sick and needed a doctor

Is the US the only first world country without universal health care?

yes, according to "sicko" you are.

yes, according to "sicko" you are.

Haven't seen it. There are a lot of ways in which the US is awesome but the "we are the best ever" mentality belongs in grade schoolers who have never experienced life outside of the U.S. and were raised by ignorant nationalists.

In the U.S. a large 45.9% of the 'poor' own their homes
By own do you mean outright or do they have mortgages? If they have mortgage then they don't own their homes

72.8% have a car
Don't need one when its cheaper and easier to just use public transport. Example, during rush hour I can get from 1 side of London to the other by public transport in 1 and half hours. If I tried by car it would take at least 3 to 4 hours...


77% have air conditioning, which remains a luxury in most of Western Europe.
A pointless luxury at that in most places. Have central heating for the winter and just a ceiling fan or plug in fan for the summer or open a window.


The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor, is 1,000 square feet."

I wouldn't know what to do with all the extra space personally. I prefer smaller homes than massive estates.

If you think America isn't living up to its potential then do something about it instead of bitching about how we could be doing better. At the very least propose something, some way you think we could be doing a certain thing better so that it can be examined with a cost-benefit analysis to see if it would really be better.

I think that we really are the greatest country on the whole damn planet because no other country has more power, wealth, and freedom all in one. America is a kick-ass place to live and anyone who says different, in my opinion, has never been here or doesn't know what they're talking about. AMERICA FUCK YEAH!

America has the greatest power, no questions about that. But you aren't richest, Luxembourg are (per capita), and you aren't the most free, Sweden are.

and i'm not saying that America are bad, but i'm really tired of the main stream Americans saying: OMFG WERE THE GREATEST IN EVERYTHING!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

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

I think that we really are the greatest country on the whole damn planet because no other country has more power, wealth, and freedom all in one. America is a kick-ass place to live.....
Unless you have the misfortune to be anything less than rich when you get seriously ill, apparently.
Is the US the only first world country without universal health care?

It'd be funny if we changed the definition of First World country so that it required the existence of a universal healthcare system.

It'd be funny if we changed the definition of First World country so that it required the existence of a universal healthcare system.

That would be awesome!

Haven't seen it. There are a lot of ways in which the US is awesome but the "we are the best ever" mentality belongs in grade schoolers who have never experienced life outside of the U.S. and were raised by ignorant nationalists.

nuh uh. It could simply be a difference in opinion on what makes a country the best. For example: the USA has the best army and largest economy, therefore we are the best country. Additionally, no other country has had as strong of a military or economy as we do, making us the "best ever".

nuh uh. It could simply be a difference in opinion on what makes a country the best. For example: the USA has the best army and largest economy, therefore we are the best country. Additionally, no other country has had as strong of a military or economy as we do, making us the "best ever".

like I said...

Ac is kind of a bad indicator for northern Europe, as there is really no need for it.

I don't know how irrelevant AC is. Didn't a whole bunch of old people die in France (obviously not N. Europe) due to a heat wave a couple years ago?

That would be awesome!

All those 'AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!' people would either collapse into the fetal position and cry or go into a total state of denial and lose whatever grasp they had on reality.

The US is clearly a country with the highest GDP and the strongest military power. Our corporations have gotten very good at destroying the economies of other countries like Mexico and large part South America, thereby forcing them to produce for our needs.

If you want to ask rather or not our countries "overall population" is well off in relation to the amount of resources that the country has, the answer is clearly no since we are pretty much the icon of capitalism. Capitalism values the exploitation of others in order to maximize profit, which includes the poor/middle class. But before we are to criticize the financial inequality of the US, we have to see that the US is so rich precisely because of capitalism. Even our smallest piece of the pie is larger than most countries out there in the world.

Some people got to realize that resources isn't paper money and distribution is base on power structures. The same dollar can have very different values at different times. Here in the US, the power structure is put in place by overall cultural attitude, not by oppression and arm. Our health care and welfare system is the way it is precisely because people here accept it as good enough. Rather we want to blame this culture on individual or media propaganda is up to you, but clearly most of us are not unhappy enough to do anything about it.

One of the thing with public education is that, the US is already experiencing a huge academic inflation. People in the previous generation have jobs right out of high school while the same job now requires a bachelors and 2 year experience. The question isn't rather or not other country have a better education system, it is rather or not we want to have so much excess amount of human resources. A high school graduate is more than enough education for sweeping the floor or being a cashier. Is there really a need to improve our public education system any further? Do we really have a shortage of well educated work force? The kind of jobs available is already disproportional to our educational level at this point. If we look at the country as a whole, we better off improving the quality, not quantity, of higher educations.

So although our country can shift more toward socialism, which would increase our overall living standards, most of us would rather blame the poor for being lazy and stupid instead.

I don't know how irrelevant AC is. Didn't a whole bunch of old people die in France (obviously not N. Europe) due to a heat wave a couple years ago?

Don't old people die in America when there's unseasonably hot/cold/whatever weather? Aren't old people in general more vulnerable to such things?

like I said...

:rolleyes:

I forgot that this is NSG where a legitimate difference in opinion means I'm a retard, backwards nationalist (and so were my parents) who has never left the country.

Don't old people die in America when there's unseasonably hot/cold/whatever weather? Aren't old people in general more vulnerable to such things?

yes, but I've never heard of thousands dying from it. I should check for an article, but its kinda old.


edit found some:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_North_American_heat_wave

http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update29.htm

Better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_European_heat_wave

compare

of course its hard to say since no two heat waves can be the same, I'd have to do some serious studying, and I do enough engineering type stuff at work.

yes, but I've never heard of thousands dying from it. I should check for an article, but its kinda old.


edit found some:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_North_American_heat_wave

http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update29.htm

compare

There's a source. (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-09-25-france-heat_x.htm)


It really was a freak incident.

It has because for the wealth it has, the US is doing really rather poorly compared to Western Europe. It's not that the US is nominally worse than most other places, it's that for the wealth it has it is relatively far worse than any first world country.

ANY first world country?
Worse than, lets say, Turkey? South Korea? Greece? Israel? Cyprus?
They're all technically 'developed countries', which has essentially replaced 'first world', since the only major 'Communist' nation is China, which isnt really Communist anymore anyway.

:rolleyes:

I forgot that this is NSG where a legitimate difference in opinion means I'm a retard, backwards nationalist (and so were my parents) who has never left the country.

your a retard, backwards nationalist (and so were your parents) who has never left the country . . ..
wait why again?

There's a source. (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-09-25-france-heat_x.htm)


It really was a freak incident.

um, I don't see anywhere that it mentions that, only that they think such events (high temperatures) will become more common. AC still useless though?



Environmental experts warn that because of climate change, such heat waves are expected to increase in number in coming years, meaning Europe — a continent that historically has enjoyed a temperate climate — will have to make adjustments.

ANY first world country?
Worse than, lets say, Turkey? South Korea? Greece? Israel? Cyprus?
They're all technically 'developed countries', which has essentially replaced 'first world', since the only major 'Communist' nation is China, which isnt really Communist anymore anyway.

If we are comparing the health of the citizenry and the amount of money spent on healthcare as a percentage of GDP, then I would argue that the USA may very well be doing worse than the above listed nations. The BBC article definitely seems to imply that.

If you think America isn't living up to its potential then do something about it instead of bitching about how we could be doing better. At the very least propose something, some way you think we could be doing a certain thing better so that it can be examined with a cost-benefit analysis to see if it would really be better.

I think that we really are the greatest country on the whole damn planet because no other country has more power, wealth, and freedom all in one. America is a kick-ass place to live and anyone who says different, in my opinion, has never been here or doesn't know what they're talking about. AMERICA FUCK YEAH!
name one way in which you are better than . . .say. . .Canada (an that doesn't include we have a bigger military and/or the fact that you live there)

your a retard, backwards nationalist (and so were your parents) who has never left the country . . ..
wait why again?

see the series of posts leading up to this one...

name one way in which you are better than . . .say. . .Canada (an that doesn't include we have a bigger military and/or the fact that you live there)

Per capita GDP, overall size of economy, weather (for those who like it warmer), cultural diversity, culture, etc...

If we are comparing the health of the citizenry and the amount of money spent on healthcare as a percentage of GDP, then I would argue that the USA may very well be doing worse than the above listed nations. The BBC article definitely seems to imply that.

Considering Cyprus is basically in the middle of a civil war...
And frankly, I'd rather live in Mississippi than South Korea or Israel.

name one way in which you are better than . . .say. . .Canada (an that doesn't include we have a bigger military and/or the fact that you live there)

Disney World.

:rolleyes:

I forgot that this is NSG where a legitimate difference in opinion means I'm a retard, backwards nationalist (and so were my parents) who has never left the country.

You can put whatever words in my mouth that you want.

There are things about the US that are better than other countries and there things about other countries that are better than the US.

I was saying that it is schoolyard childishness to spout we are the best nation ever and point to one or two things where we excel and I blame the parents of of those people for raising them as blind nationalists because where else would someone get such ignorant views?

The same goes for people of other countries who say the same thing about their own nation.

Thinking that having the strongest military or economy, at the expense of the health and happiness of it's citizens, is what makes a country the best is short-sighted to say the least.

um, I don't see anywhere that it mentions that, only that they think such events (high temperatures) will become more common. AC still useless though?

It's still not a useful factor in determining quality of life, since most of Europe would have no use for air conditioning.

see the series of posts leading up to this one...



Per capita GDP, overall size of economy, weather (for those who like it warmer), cultural diversity, culture, etc...
1)
GDP Per capita in the states=45,800
GDP per capita in Malta=53,400
GDP per capita in Canada=38,400
GDP per Capita in Qatar=80,900

(id say GDP per capita might not be the be all and end all of a country . . .but don't get me wrong I do like Qatar)

2)Economically at the moment Canada's doing better than the states (for one thing we don't have a trillion dollar debt.) (for another we are still in a period of growth. Slow groth but growth none the less. the US of A has been in decline for a while now)

3)BC, Southern Ontario, Southern Quebec.

4)Cutural diversity???? really??? the states??? ya think so? Ok I want to hear this explain please.

5)How is one culture better? I don't understand

You can put whatever words in my mouth that you want.
any words?

There are things about the US that are better than other countries and there things about other countries that are better than the US.

agreed.

I was saying that it is schoolyard childishness to spout we are the best nation ever and point to one or two things where we excel and I blame the parents of of those people for raising them as blind nationalists because where else would someone get such ignorant views?

The same goes for people of other countries who say the same thing about their own nation.


Blame their parents? I think you have to stop blaming the parents once the kid can look things up for himself.

Another source of "USA #1" could be their own analysis of the situation and their personal preferences in what kind of country they would like to live in.


Thinking that having the strongest military or economy, at the expense of the health and happiness of it's citizens, is what makes a country the best is short-sighted to say the least.

I don't see why. Both could be platforms for making your citizens happy and healthy, as opposed to impoverished or conquered.

Disney World.

Nice! Though we do have wonderland and Behemoth.

1)
GDP Per capita in the states=45,800
GDP per capita in Malta=53,400
GDP per capita in Canada=38,400
GDP per Capita in Qatar=80,900

(id say GDP per capita might not be the be all and end all of a country . . .but don't get me wrong I do like Qatar)

:rolleyes: source. BTW Qatar is rich as hell because of oil and foreigners (most of their populace)

2)Economically at the moment Canada's doing better than the states (for one thing we don't have a trillion dollar debt.) (for another we are still in a period of growth. Slow groth but growth none the less. the US of A has been in decline for a while now)

source on, well everything, besides the debt which is meaningless anyway unless you can compare it in terms of overall GDP of the country.

3)BC, Southern Ontario, Southern Quebec.

I live right near canada, have my whole life, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't get as hot here or as long as it does in the southern states.


4)Cutural diversity???? really??? the states??? ya think so? Ok I want to hear this explain please.

I would love to as soon as I get some good links going


5)How is one culture better? I don't understand

lol, if you haven't noticed most of my reasons were subjective... I was just trying to make a point to you that there is no end all be all of "best".

Considering Cyprus is basically in the middle of a civil war...
And frankly, I'd rather live in Mississippi than South Korea or Israel.



Disney World.

Overall, the USA was number 12. In that respect, the USA is 'better' than the majority of developed nations.

But I believe the thread is specifically about the amount of cash US Americans spend on healthcare, and what they get in return. When we are comparing that particular thing, we see that the USA was number one in health care spending, and number 42 in terms of health. This was out of 70 countries, apparently.

Those are the numbers.

Canada is number 4 overall. How did Australia beat us? :confused:

any words?


I don't see why. Both could be platforms for making your citizens happy and healthy, as opposed to impoverished or conquered.


sure - any words at all.


Hmmm, maybe they could be...
So then why doesn't the US have healthier, happier and more edumacated citizens (compared to the majority of the other first world nations) if it has the the best economy and military in the world?

sure - any words at all.


Hmmm, maybe they could be...
So then why doesn't the US have healthier, happier and more edumacated citizens (compared to the majority of the other first world nations) if it has the the best economy and military in the world?

I said could be a platform for, not automatically causes.

Never said you could put words in my mouth ;)

So wouldn't you call that a failure on the part of the US - since our military and health care spending is higher than any other nations?

So wouldn't you call that a failure on the part of the US - since our military and health care spending is higher than any other nations?

not necessarily, we're still a free nation no?

health care is tricky, different genetic and cultural elements could be combining to cause us worse health, despite better treatment, however it is my view that something better could be done in the terms of health I don't know if we've "failed" exactly in health care or if we simply face greater challenges.

We're usually ranked pretty high on the list of happiest countries, even though we shouldn't be, culturally. We're *supposed* to be focused only on the future, never satisfied with what we have and what we're doing at the present - that's what has made us and our economy great.

We would be the most miserable country in the world, if we still had that impulse, because we'd have contempt for the present at every moment. But we've gotten complacent, fat and happy for the most part, and we may eventually have an accordingly European government - a large, overgrown bureaucracy (not that the current one isn't large) tasked with spending our money for us and telling us how to live. But we'd probably live longer, too.

In some senses we are free and in others we are not.

If our nations citizens are generally unhappier, unhealthier and less educated than another nation - I would say that the other nation is more successful where it truely counts.

Sure we can destroy the entire world if we wanted to, but is that really something to be proud of?

The US cannot be called the best nation on Earth when it is failing in so many important ways where others are not. It's good at some stuff and it sucks in other ways.

:rolleyes: source. BTW Qatar is rich as hell because of oil and foreigners (most of their populace)


source on, well everything, besides the debt which is meaningless anyway unless you can compare it in terms of overall GDP of the country.

I live right near canada, have my whole life, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't get as hot here or as long as it does in the southern states.


I would love to as soon as I get some good links going



lol, if you haven't noticed most of my reasons were subjective... I was just trying to make a point to you that there is no end all be all of "best".
1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
true but you get my point no?

2)Seen your stock market recently
past year:
GSPTSE=-800 <----TSX benchmark now trading at 13,460.25
DJI=-4 000 <----NYSE benchmark now trading at 11 446
S&P 500= -900
NYA=- 1700 <----NYSE benchmark now trading at 8 415
so the canadian stock exchange (the tsx is the biggest)
is actually outperforming the S&P 500 (over the last year) while the NYSE is doing less well.
Or lets look at your dollar. Two years ago the CAD was trading at something like .80$ now its 0.995818
want me to continue?

3)ok fair enough . . . your not gonna get texas weather here

4)ok go for it. I'll wait cause this I really really really wanna hear.

5)ya but the others can be measured (and are all the time for some of em) Culture . . .not so much. (personally not such a fan of the American work till you die and hope you get rich culture but w/e)

We're usually ranked pretty high on the list of happiest countries, even though we shouldn't be, culturally. We're *supposed* to be focused only on the future, never satisfied with what we have and what we're doing at the present - that's what has made us and our economy great.

We would be the most miserable country in the world, if we still had that impulse, because we'd have contempt for the present at every moment. But we've gotten complacent, fat and happy for the most part, and we may eventually have an accordingly European government - a large, overgrown bureaucracy (not that the current one isn't large) tasked with spending our money for us and telling us how to live. But we'd probably live longer, too.

Well, I for one, welcome our European socialist overlords. :hail:

lol nice

Well, I for one, welcome our European socialist overlords. :hail:

Easier than working, eh? ;)

All hail the jobless

1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
true but you get my point no?

not really, theres nothing to say Qatar or Luxembourg wouldn't be great places to live.


2)Seen your stock market recently
past year:
GSPTSE=-800 <----TSX benchmark now trading at 13,460.25
DJI=-4 000 <----NYSE benchmark now trading at 11 446
S&P 500= -900
NYA=- 1700 <----NYSE benchmark now trading at 8 415
so the canadian stock exchange (the tsx is the biggest)
is actually outperforming the S&P 500 (over the last year) while the NYSE is doing less well.
Or lets look at your dollar. Two years ago the CAD was trading at something like .80$ now its 0.995818
want me to continue?

I can't say I know enough about stocks to say whether the number really matter, though since you already looked it up (and im a little suspiscious after the whole gdp/capita thing), it'd be pretty easy to give a source.

3)ok fair enough . . . your not gonna get texas weather here

4)ok go for it. I'll wait cause this I really really really wanna hear.


"In 2006, 16.2% of the population belonged to non-aboriginal visible minorities." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada#Demographics

couldn't find a number for the US but since about that amount are blacks alone in the US... add to that an equal number of hispanics and a million or so asians. Of course ethnicity=/=cultural diversity, but generally when people identify as something there will be a cultural difference as well. Even if Canada was more diverse, I could easily say that I prefer people who are like me to live with and therefore cultural diversity is bad.


5)ya but the others can be measured (and are all the time for some of em) Culture . . .not so much. (personally not such a fan of the American work till you die and hope you get rich culture but w/e)

well, it can't be measured in numerical terms, but cultural practices could be observed and compared, whether or not you like them is the subjective part. I could also say that we have more and better museums

America has the greatest power, no questions about that. But you aren't richest, Luxembourg are (per capita),

Hey, we got mentioned!

Even if Canada was more diverse, I could easily say that I prefer people who are like me to live with and therefore cultural diversity is bad.

In other words, "If I hold the specific viewpoint that likes everything about the US, it's the best country."

I, for one, prefer the cold.

1)so then their better than the states? cause you were claiming that the states is the best place in the world to live

2)why are you suspicious I gave you a source!!! and just type those symbols into Google finance. those are the numbers that come up (if you don't know how to use Google finance please ask)

3)im sorry?
The largest ethnic group is English (21%), followed by French (15.8%), Scottish (15.2%), Irish (13.9%), German (10.2%), Italian (5%), Chinese (4%), Ukrainian (3.6%), and First Nations (3.5%) <----Canada

White alone (including White Hispanic): 74% or 221.3 million
Black or African American alone: 12.4% or 37 million
American Indian or Alaska Native alone: 0.68% or 2.0 million
Asian alone: 4.4% or 13.1 million
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander alone: 0.14% or 0.43 million
Some other race alone: 6.5% or 19 million
Two or more races: 2.0% or 6.1 million
<----- states.

and you claimed that the states was more culturally diverse. Don't back down just because you found out you were wrong. Start making up stats in the best NSG style lol. (O and before you ask this is all wiki. canada was from the site you quoted and the states is from a united states demographics search.)

4) more and better museums per capita? I think not! lmao I'm honestly not too sure on how you measure culture. I mean everywhere has it.

In other words, "If I hold the specific viewpoint that likes everything about the US, it's the best country."

I, for one, prefer the cold.

exactly! and me too . . .this weather is killing me!!!

I don't mean to say that your life would be meaningless and pathetic without a dishwasher, but the point the article is making, is that Americans generally have more disposable income, which is a huge indicator of wealth and happiness.
Most American homes are in cities that didn't exist 2-300 years ago... it's a lot easier to have a dishwasher if your house was built in the last 50 years when kitchens were planned with dishwashers in mind.

My apartment doesn't have a dishwasher and it wouldn't have room for a dishwasher even if I wanted one.

And actually, disposable income or wealth isn't an indication of happiness. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/04/10/do1003.xml

Yes.


Next question? life in America is not as harsh as CNN International paints it.

Moonbats need to take their biased polls and feck off.

why is life so good?

1)so then their better than the states? cause you were claiming that the states is the best place in the world to live

2)why are you suspicious I gave you a source!!! and just type those symbols into Google finance. those are the numbers that come up (if you don't know how to use Google finance please ask)

3)im sorry?
The largest ethnic group is English (21%), followed by French (15.8%), Scottish (15.2%), Irish (13.9%), German (10.2%), Italian (5%), Chinese (4%), Ukrainian (3.6%), and First Nations (3.5%) <----Canada

White alone (including White Hispanic): 74% or 221.3 million
Black or African American alone: 12.4% or 37 million
American Indian or Alaska Native alone: 0.68% or 2.0 million
Asian alone: 4.4% or 13.1 million
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander alone: 0.14% or 0.43 million
Some other race alone: 6.5% or 19 million
Two or more races: 2.0% or 6.1 million
<----- states.

and you claimed that the states was more culturally diverse. Don't back down just because you found out you were wrong. Start making up stats in the best NSG style lol. (O and before you ask this is all wiki. canada was from the site you quoted and the states is from a united states demographics search.)

4) more and better museums per capita? I think not! lmao I'm honestly not too sure on how you measure culture. I mean everywhere has it.

um, the only problem being that you clumped Hispanic and white together, I realize that this is how the US census does things, but there is definitely a cultural difference when over half of Hispanics are immigrants. Besides, most "whites" in the US probably could check off german french, etc. in goodly proportions as opposed to simply "white".

I'm only having trouble getting a source because CIA.gov is being a bitch to me and I can't load anything off of it.

In other words, "If I hold the specific viewpoint that likes everything about the US, it's the best country."

I, for one, prefer the cold.

I also like cold weather. But my original line of thought was aimed at someone claiming that only nationalists who think the military and economy are the most important things could believe that the USA is the best, this is quite simply not the case.

ahh fair enough. . .but wait theres 2 of you???? ahhhh!!!!! CLONE!!!!!

I also like cold weather. But my original line of thought was aimed at someone claiming that only nationalists who think the military and economy are the most important things could believe that the USA is the best, this is quite simply not the case.

I disagree! QATAR is hot as hell AND has a higher GDP per capita.

um, the only problem being that you clumped Hispanic and white together, I realize that this is how the US census does things, but there is definitely a cultural difference when over half of Hispanics are immigrants. Besides, most "whites" in the US probably could check off german french, etc. in goodly proportions as opposed to simply "white".

I'm only having trouble getting a source because CIA.gov is being a bitch to me and I can't load anything off of it.
Being French in Canada isn't quite the same as just being of French descent in the US (unless one is speaking of a region where creole is common). Being of French descent probably means that you're a francophone here, or Acadian which is a bit of a cultural difference than just being French and speaking the same language as the general population.

um, the only problem being that you clumped Hispanic and white together, I realize that this is how the US census does things, but there is definitely a cultural difference when over half of Hispanics are immigrants. Besides, most "whites" in the US probably could check off german french, etc. in goodly proportions as opposed to simply "white".

I'm only having trouble getting a source because CIA.gov is being a bitch to me and I can't load anything off of it.

Damn right! Those hispanics are NOT white!

To be truly white, to the standard of Pure Aryan White Nationalism, you must meet the following criteria:

You must sunburn easily.
You must be Protestant Christian.
You must have NO black grandparents.
You must have no more than 2 grandparents total (dad says its why I have 11 toes).
You must NOT date or marry other races, unless you own them.
You must be STRAIGHT. There are no gay white people. Except that one time my sophomore year at BYU.

Hispanics are very close to being white, because they enjoy pickups, outdoor grilling, economy-priced beer, and fat white girls.

But they are not white.

and fat white girls.

I thought that was a black guy thing.

thanks Dakini

I thought that was a black guy thing.

Please don't be racist.


The fact is, all our plump doughy gals are being snatched up by ethnic types!

Please don't be racist.

You mean it's not? Cuz that's been my excuse for a while.

You mean it's not? Cuz that's been my excuse for a while.

Black guys only go out with heavy caucasian ladies because

a) Big girls can cook, brothers like to eat well
b) More cushion for the pushin'
c) Big girls have good credit and can co-sign for a caddy lease
d) Large women are easier to run away from when they catch you with their sister.

Life in the U.S. is not good, by any means, but it's slightly more tolerable than in most other countries, partly because the U.S. is more economically "free" (though, considering how statist the world is, that really isn't saying much at all), and partly because the state hasn't quite gotten around to stamping out our other freedoms as extensively as some other states have with their citizens. Things would improve substantially if we could do away with the ills of imperialism, central banking, fiat "money," fractional-reserve banking, and every other breed of statist evil.

Black guys only go out with heavy caucasian ladies because

a) Big girls can cook, brothers like to eat well
b) More cushion for the pushin'
c) Big girls have good credit and can co-sign for a caddy lease
d) Large women are easier to run away from when they catch you with their sister.

That's just a little racist.

And for the majority of americans... life sucks.

You can't measure the quality of life based on GDP per Capita. If you have 10 people and everyone makes $200 a week, GDP per Capita for the week is $200.

If you have ten people where 9 make $10 a week and one makes $1910 a week, the GDP per Capita for the week is still $200, even though more than half the people make only $10 a week.

Yes, life in the US is good. You should see the line of people waiting to get in.

Fucking ownage.

Life is still good.

Yes, life in the US is good. You should see the line of people waiting to get in.

"we're better than mexico" doesn't seem like that high a standard to me.

"we're better than mexico" doesn't seem like that high a standard to me.


I'm seen immigrants from other countries as well, and so have you.

I've seen immigrants from Europe, Africa, Asia, South America, North America (some Canucks, and lots of Mexicans), and Australia. I haven't seen any immigrants from Antarctica, though.

I'm seen immigrants from other countries as well, and so have you.

I've seen immigrants from Europe, Africa, Asia, South America, North America (some Canucks, and lots of Mexicans), and Australia. I haven't seen any immigrants from Antarctica, though.

You know, I moved to Europe because my dad's job moved there, does that really say anything about relative quality of life?

I haven't seen any immigrants from Antarctica, though.I have. At the zoo.

I like it. I wouldn't live anywhere else. And honestly, isn't that what really counts?

I like it. I wouldn't live anywhere else. And honestly, isn't that what really counts?

I still contend that Michigan is about half Canadian anyways.

...I don't know if we've "failed" exactly in health care or if we simply face greater challenges.

Let me help you with that. We have.

We spend more, and get less for it. Maybe we have more pollution, or worse diets or whatever - but that's PART OF the healthcare picture. If other nations pollute less, and their people are healthier.... their healthcare is still better.

I still contend that Michigan is about half Canadian anyways.

I still contend your face.

I still contend your face.

*wins*

You know, I moved to Europe because my dad's job moved there, does that really say anything about relative quality of life?


Hmm, well, lots of people want to come to the US, so there must be something good about it?

Not that hard of a concept, really.

But anyway, I haven't been out of the US, so I can't really compare, but I'll say I doubt I'd rather live anywhere else in the modern world.

But anyway, I haven't been out of the US, so I can't really compare, but I'll say I doubt I'd rather live anywhere else in the modern world.

You should have stopped with the first half.

I have lived outside of the US, and the US is a tip compared to the UK, unless you have a lot of money. You've never tried, so you don't know... and that would have been a good note on which to stop expressing an opinion.

You should have stopped with the first half.

I have lived outside of the US, and the US is a tip compared to the UK, unless you have a lot of money. You've never tried, so you don't know... and that would have been a good note on which to stop expressing an opinion.

is a tip? What the hell does that phrase main?

Anyways.

I'd love to go overseas, but I've got things to do in the good ol' US of A first. Like save money and things like that.

Honestly though, talking to ferriners has really turned me off to wanting to live outside of the US. Our beliefs just wouldn't mesh, and I'd end up losing my mind hearing so many wrong thoughts at once. :)

is a tip? What the hell does that phrase main?

Anyways.

I'd love to go overseas, but I've got things to do in the good ol' US of A first. Like save money and things like that.

Honestly though, talking to ferriners has really turned me off to wanting to live outside of the US. Are beliefs just wouldn't mesh, and I'd end up losing my mind hearing so many wrong thoughts at once. :)

Probably best you stay put, then.

You probably wouldn't like nations with healthcare, non-apathetic politics, culture, history, equality, and an actual choice hen you go to vote.

Probably best you stay put, then.

You probably wouldn't like nations with healthcare, non-apathetic politics, culture, history, equality, and an actual choice hen you go to vote.

I care about politics and history. Culture is in the eye of the beholder. Equality...meh. People have equality before the law. That's fine. So what if some people come from wealthy backgrounds? Whoopdeedoo.

Healthcare is a personal matter, not a public one. (unless its a plague, or something...perhaps)

I don't expect people to pay for my shit. Why should I pay for theirs?

I still contend your face.

I'd be more hurt if I wasn't busy contending your mom right now.

I'd be more hurt if I wasn't busy contending your mom right now.

Too bad you missed me contending your entire family tonight. And your dog.

I'd be more hurt if I wasn't busy contending your mom right now.

Too bad you missed me contending your entire family tonight. And your dog.

Oh snap, its ON!

Well, a lot of people do come here and very few Americans renounce their citizenship for that of another country, so it's hard to believe we're all that bad. Obviously not perfect, and undoubtedly there are countries a good deal ahead of us on certain issues than we are, but by and large we're a country that can provide a lot of opportunities for the people that live here.

is a tip? What the hell does that phrase main?

Anyways.

I'd love to go overseas, but I've got things to do in the good ol' US of A first. Like save money and things like that.

Honestly though, talking to ferriners has really turned me off to wanting to live outside of the US. Our beliefs just wouldn't mesh, and I'd end up losing my mind hearing so many wrong thoughts at once. :)

ahh ethnocentrism.

Too bad you missed me contending your entire family tonight. And your dog.

Pff, what else is new? I, on the other hand, spent the morning contending your postcount.

America's a great country with a shitty government. And not just on foreign policy, but on a lot of issues: whatever the reason, domestic policymaking hasn't been a force for particular good in the last few decades and perhaps longer than that.

That being said, I've never been.

Pff, what else is new? I, on the other hand, spent the morning contending your postcount.

I spent this afternoon (after a brisk workout and 6 egg white breakfast) contending your internets. All of them.

I spent this afternoon (after a brisk workout and 6 egg white breakfast) contending your internets. All of them.

Ha, just left me with time to contend your existence as a thinking entity before my evening jog.

Hmm, well, lots of people want to come to the US, so there must be something good about it?

Not that hard of a concept, really.

But anyway, I haven't been out of the US, so I can't really compare, but I'll say I doubt I'd rather live anywhere else in the modern world.

How many of those people are from countries such as those mentioned in the OP as Western European or otherwise first world, and how many are from poor countries? In fact, how many are from Mexico, Central America and points south? All they're coming for are the jobs. If the US were a communist nation, or a monarchy, I don't think they'd care so long as they could still get work and send money home.

I understand and support healthy patriotism. Yours is blind, as the emphasized part of the quoted post clearly demonstrates.

If you think America isn't living up to its potential then do something about it instead of bitching about how we could be doing better. At the very least propose something, some way you think we could be doing a certain thing better so that it can be examined with a cost-benefit analysis to see if it would really be better.

I think that we really are the greatest country on the whole damn planet because no other country has more power, wealth, and freedom all in one. America is a kick-ass place to live and anyone who says different, in my opinion, has never been here or doesn't know what they're talking about. AMERICA FUCK YEAH!

I don't live in the US :rolleyes:

I still contend that Michigan is about half Canadian anyways.

The only real difference between Michigan and Canada is that we have guns and they have universal healthcare.

The USA is a great place to live, but having spent a lot of time in Canada (apart from Michigan) and France I'd be glad to live in either of them. Actually, I do plan on moving to France for a while and I may end up staying there.

ANY first world country?
Worse than, lets say, Turkey? South Korea? Greece? Israel? Cyprus?
They're all technically 'developed countries', which has essentially replaced 'first world', since the only major 'Communist' nation is China, which isnt really Communist anymore anyway.

Turkey and Greece are doing really rather well so yes, South Korean is a tiger economy - don't even go there, and Israel and Cyprus are war-zones. Do you have any RELEVANT comparisons?

We have 10x the population so that would be simply impossible.


I don't see how this is relevant.

I care about politics and history. Culture is in the eye of the beholder. Equality...meh. People have equality before the law. That's fine. So what if some people come from wealthy backgrounds? Whoopdeedoo.

Healthcare is a personal matter, not a public one. (unless its a plague, or something...perhaps)

I don't expect people to pay for my shit. Why should I pay for theirs?

1)healthcare: Cause that way when you get sick you don`t have to take out a second mortegage on your house. You should come up to Canada sometime. See what its like.

2)most people who have monney in the states didn`t do shit all for it but because of the way your system works down there have a great grand-pappy who was a robber baron somehow makes you better than everyone else. So of course you deserve better healthcare right? and better schooling. O and you'll need a gun to protect all that monney too.

In countries where universal health care has been introduced, it has proved to be very popular and, arguably, provided better outcomes more efficiently.

Its popularity means that its opponents vigorously fight againt its introduction because once the fight is lost it can't be won again.

In Australia it was introduced by the Labor government in the early 70s. It was anathema to the subsequent pro-market Liberal government who abolished it by 1980, despite public opinion. The next Labor government re-introduced it. It has remained ever since even though the Howard Government, even more pro-market than the earlier Liberal government, loathed it. Getting rid of it would have been electoral suicide by that time.

not true. The us could easily adopt policies such as those in places with lower economies if were to scale back on certain things (such as its war in Iraq and afganistan) that are costing the American economy badly.

We have a bad President. ATM

I don't see how this is relevant. There are about 6 million people in Denmark and probably 2 million of them are college age, they get paid to go to college. Compare that to the USA population. How is that not revalent to my arguement that other countries always compare their system to us.

How many of those people are from countries such as those mentioned in the OP as Western European or otherwise first world, and how many are from poor countries? In fact, how many are from Mexico, Central America and points south? All they're coming for are the jobs. If the US were a communist nation, or a monarchy, I don't think they'd care so long as they could still get work and send money home.

I understand and support healthy patriotism. Yours is blind, as the emphasized part of the quoted post clearly demonstrates.

I moved from the UK to the US because my wife is an American native. Given the healthcare situations in each country, that issue alone would have kept me in the UK, if there had been any lesser reason than my lovely lady wife.

ahh ethnocentrism.

Kind of sums up everything bad about the US.

Americans live shorter lives than citizens of almost every other developed nation, according to a report from several US charities.


This chart disagrees. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy)
* Of the world's richest nations, the US has the most children (15%) living in poverty

Despite the fact that all countries have different standards for poverty.
* Of the OECD nations, the US has the most people in prison - as a percentage and in absolute numbers

War on drugs. No more needs to be said.
* 25% of 15-year-old students performed at or below the lowest level in an international maths test - worse than Canada, France, Germany and Japan

Link?
* If the US infant mortality rate were equal to first-ranked Sweden, more than 20,000 babies would survive beyond their first year of life
Despite it being less then several European countries.Link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate)

1)healthcare: Cause that way when you get sick you don`t have to take out a second mortegage on your house. You should come up to Canada sometime. See what its like.

2)most people who have monney in the states didn`t do shit all for it but because of the way your system works down there have a great grand-pappy who was a robber baron somehow makes you better than everyone else. So of course you deserve better healthcare right? and better schooling. O and you'll need a gun to protect all that monney too.

Hmmm, ever hear of health insurance? Its not very expensive and it gets the job done.

2nd. Right, because rich people in the US don't do shit for their cash. My parents right now have a very high income ( I will not discuss it on here ). But up until 5 years ago their net income was only 75,000 a year. Not that much considering they both worked full time jobs and have 2 degrees each.

They decided to start they're own business, and worked there ass off for it And they keep working they're ass's off to get as much cash as possible.

I work my ass off for my money to pay for 3 cars, and college.

So on universal health care again.

I work my ass off for my health care. Why should I pay for other peoples shit?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7511426.stm

If the USA is spending more per person on health care than any other country, why is it not seeing the results in terms of the well-being of its citizens? Would a nationalised health service be better for the United States or, if not, which of the two main party candidates in the coming election will be best for the US on health, and why?

US sucks! Death to America! Cha Cha cha!:mp5::mp5::mp5:

Well, its not so bad some of the time. However, growing up on the mean streets of Da Vern, I can tell you, life is rough for the poor people. For instance, I'm so poor, I can't even afford health insurance. 21 years old, and with out an health insurance. And I have a job, which pays 8.30/hr. So, in the prime of my life, I have to make sure not to do anything fun or exciting for fear of not having coverage to back me up. Yay.

Hmmm, ever hear of health insurance? Its not very expensive and it gets the job done.

Not as well as public healthcare, which does a better job and costs less.

I work my ass off for my health care. Why should I pay for other peoples shit?

I don't believe you work hard, actually.

Anyways, the industriousness of people should not be a factor in deciding whether or not they receive health care. If that were the case, all the trophy wives sitting around in overpriced McMansions staring at the gardener's ass all day long wouldn't ever be allowed in a hospital.

Hmmm, ever hear of health insurance? Its not very expensive and it gets the job done. Not expensive? Which is why I can't afford it?

2nd. Right, because rich people in the US don't do shit for their cash. My parents right now have a very high income ( I will not discuss it on here ). But up until 5 years ago their net income was only 75,000 a year. Not that much considering they both worked full time jobs and have 2 degrees each. 75k a year? that'd be a dream come true. Try having a parent that made only 20k a year, trying to provide for two kids, a car and a house.

I work my ass off for my money to pay for 3 cars, and college.
Why do you need three cars?



So on universal health care again.

I work my ass off for my health care. Why should I pay for other peoples shit?
Because there are those that work their ass off and can't afford it. Humanity didn't get to where its at based on a society working against itself, but rather worked for the best of the people. Too bad spoiled kids like you are destroying our damn society with your money grubbing ways. It sickens me to see a person with 3 effing cars complain about helping out people without health care. :mad:

Not as well as public healthcare, which does a better job and costs less.


We spend too much money on our military to fund something like that. Whether it's worth it or not, that's the price of being a superpower.

And for the OP, yea, were not too shabby.
13th on the Quality of Life Index. (http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf)

We spend too much money on our military to fund something like that. Whether it's worth it or not, that's the price of being a superpower.

And for the OP, yea, were not too shabby.
13th on the Quality of Life Index. (http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf)

Then that is merely one more reason why the US should not be a superpower.

Then that is merely one more reason why the US should not be a superpower.

That's a completely different thread.

And for the OP, yea, were not too shabby.
13th on the Quality of Life Index. (http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf)

Thats not so great. Notice that the US has the second highest negative difference between quality of life and GDP per capita of any developed nation, with the UK taking the dubious honour of the highest difference.

That's a completely different thread.

This thread is about how the US spends the most on health, yet has almost the worst health, out of the developed nations.

If you looked at the numbers, you would see that the USA could probably spend less money on healthcare and still improve its health rankings by simply switching to public healthcare.

Then the US governent would have more money for appropriating the resources of brown people who live outside the US border.

US sucks! Death to America! Cha Cha cha!:mp5::mp5::mp5:

Well, its not so bad some of the time. However, growing up on the mean streets of Da Vern, I can tell you, life is rough for the poor people. For instance, I'm so poor, I can't even afford health insurance. 21 years old, and with out an health insurance. And I have a job, which pays 8.30/hr. So, in the prime of my life, I have to make sure not to do anything fun or exciting for fear of not having coverage to back me up. Yay.

are you living on your own?

I moved from the UK to the US because my wife is an American native. Given the healthcare situations in each country, that issue alone would have kept me in the UK, if there had been any lesser reason than my lovely lady wife.

Wow. You left behind the NHS in the UK to come here for a woman. THAT, my friends, is love.

Hmmm, ever hear of health insurance? Its not very expensive and it gets the job done.

Spoken like someone who never sees the bill. What's your monthly contribution for health insurance and who's your provider, and can you answer both questions without asking your parents, who pay for it?

2nd. Right, because rich people in the US don't do shit for their cash. My parents right now have a very high income ( I will not discuss it on here ). But up until 5 years ago their net income was only 75,000 a year. Not that much considering they both worked full time jobs and have 2 degrees each.

Many don't. If a work ethic was so important to the upper 1%, why do they so vehemently oppose the inheritance tax? Surely they'd wan their kids to learn to work as hard as they did (that investing, wow, that just takes it right out of some people).

They decided to start they're own business, and worked there ass off for it And they keep working they're ass's off to get as much cash as possible.

Nice to see the education your parents paid for in action, sport.

I work my ass off for my money to pay for 3 cars, and college.

Y'know what? I can't even scrounge up the benefit of the doubt on this one.

So on universal health care again.

I work my ass off for my health care. Why should I pay for other peoples shit?

Because someone's salary shouldn't determine the level of care they receive, that's why. Because a healthy population means healthy workers who aren't debilitated by injury, disease or especially by worrying about how to pay for any of it. And those healthy workers are working to make the businesses owned by people like your parents successful. In other words, it's in employers' best interest to maintain healthy workers. The fact that you can't see that simple fact is very telling.

When I switched jobs recently, my former employer offered me heath insurance (Blue Cross, as it was when I was employed there) via COBRA coverage. My premium would have gone from $135/mo to $385/mo had I accepted the coverage. Instead, I got a short-term plan from my insurance agent (State Farm) to cover any catastrophic injury/illness in the three months I'm now without regular employer-contributed coverage for About the same amount for all three months. $500 deductible, so I won't be going in unless I break something.

By your logic, since I never used the coverage I had for three years, I should be able to get my contributions back, as should my employer. Does it work that way? Not a chance in hell. Why? Because my money and my employer's money went toward paying for those who needed to use the coverage. And guess what? If I'd stayed there for a decade and needed to use the system at some point and it cost more than I'd paid in premiums to that point, I'D STILL BE COVERED. Your reasoning suggests that once I've gone over the value of my/my employer's contributions to that point, I should be denied coverage.

I never understood why the people of France guillotined Marie Antoinette during their revolution. Reading your posts, I get it now.

I didn't have a good time while living in the US. Nevertheless, people there live much better, to some extent, than in some other countries.

Not as well as public healthcare, which does a better job and costs less.



I don't believe you work hard, actually.

Anyways, the industriousness of people should not be a factor in deciding whether or not they receive health care. If that were the case, all the trophy wives sitting around in overpriced McMansions staring at the gardener's ass all day long wouldn't ever be allowed in a hospital.

I believe I do work pretty hard, unless 60-70 hours a week counts as not working. And there's a damn good reason I have a job like this, even before college. I worked my ass getting good grades in school, and taking night classes for commercial wiring. ( And Yes, I am at a site right now, the truck has wireless )

Before that I worked at McDonald's 30 some hours a week in between school and night classes. So yeah, hard work gets you places, not government hand outs.

Hard work beats shitty government hand outs, its as simple as that.

Not expensive? Which is why I can't afford it?

75k a year? that'd be a dream come true. Try having a parent that made only 20k a year, trying to provide for two kids, a car and a house.

Why do you need three cars?



Because there are those that work their ass off and can't afford it. Humanity didn't get to where its at based on a society working against itself, but rather worked for the best of the people. Too bad spoiled kids like you are destroying our damn society with your money grubbing ways. It sickens me to see a person with 3 effing cars complain about helping out people without health care. :mad:

Thats the point I'm making, by going to school and working your ass off, you can go places.

Well I don't need 3 cars, but I like cars. I only make payments on one of them, But the other 2 need fuel and repairs.

Right, " spoiled "? I am not exactly sure were your getting that from. I've said more than one time on this board that MY PARENTS DO NOT PAY FOR ANYTHING BESIDES THE FACT THAT I LIVE WITH THEM. Thats it, I'm paying for my cars, gas, insurance, school, you name it out of my own pocket. They don't give me a dime. Other than the fact I live with them rent free.

First, the American military budget is too big. But one of the reasons Europe's is so small, is because they can rely on us if anything actually happens. Second, the crime rate is lower in America so the prison population shouldn't be overstated. Third, Americans have a much larger % of population as students in schools, so a poorer education is kind of inevitable. Finally, the infant death thing ignores abortion, which is one reason why Europe's population is going down. However, in many ways (health care, minimum wage) Europe has advantage. Personally, I think Britain is the best of both worlds:)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7511426.stm

If the USA is spending more per person on health care than any other country, why is it not seeing the results in terms of the well-being of its citizens? Would a nationalised health service be better for the United States or, if not, which of the two main party candidates in the coming election will be best for the US on health, and why?

Is life in Europe really so good, with obscene unemployment, limits on freedom of speech and worship, and, the fact that immigrants in Europe are perpetually shitted upon?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7511426.stm

If the USA is spending more per person on health care than any other country, why is it not seeing the results in terms of the well-being of its citizens? Would a nationalised health service be better for the United States or, if not, which of the two main party candidates in the coming election will be best for the US on health, and why?

Our government cannot manage social security without lousing it up. I would never trust them with my health!

Is life in Europe really so good, with obscene unemployment, limits on freedom of speech and worship, and, the fact that immigrants in Europe are perpetually shitted upon?

Hold on... the obscene numbers of unemployed people afford to live - basic needs, true, but you don't step on bums in the street. Freedom of speech is no more limited in Europe than in the US, and it is in the form of libel and anti-discrimination laws, just like in the US: the difference is that in the US you can't say anything against the owner of the media you use - here you can... oh and you can swear on TV as well. So our freedom of speech, is in actuality, slightly better. And you have the freedom to worship freely as long as you do not shove it down anyone's throat. In the US you lack the freedom of not being shoved everybody else's beliefs down your throat - especially that of evangelicals.

And I'm an immigrant. I have never been made to feel inferior to the locals here in the UK. In fact, often times, I was put in a superior position.

So stuff it.

I work my ass off for my health care. Why should I pay for other peoples shit?

The simple answer would be that you don't want to die of plague. That's the thing about communicable diseases, they don't give a shit how hard you worked, or who pays for your treatment.

Another simple answer would be - lots of people are working their asses off, but not everyone gets rich from it.

Still another simple answer would be that nationalised healthcare is actually cheaper than the US model. You'd be better off if you were 'paying for other people's shit'.

MY PARENTS DO NOT PAY FOR ANYTHING BESIDES THE FACT THAT I LIVE WITH THEM. Thats ... I live with them rent free.

So, they're paying for your rent, effectively?

Is life in Europe really so good, with obscene unemployment, limits on freedom of speech and worship, and, the fact that immigrants in Europe are perpetually shitted upon?

Shat.

Are they treated so much better here?

Our government cannot manage social security without lousing it up. I would never trust them with my health!

no kidding. we are already doomed with the medicare D prescription coverage. how are they ever going to make govt run health care work?

no kidding. we are already doomed with the medicare D prescription coverage. how are they ever going to make govt run health care work?

If the reason not to have universal healthcare, is that your government isn't trustworthy... why indulge that government?

If the reason not to have universal healthcare, is that your government isn't trustworthy... why indulge that government?

because there are some things that i trust them with and some that i dont.

because there are some things that i trust them with and some that i dont.

But universal healthcare is more efficient and cheaper. Why would you choose inferior government over better government, when better government would improve standards of living AND leave more money in your paycheck?

There are things I 'trust' the government with. Streetnames, for example. They seem to be pretty good at getting the right names on the signs.

But I'd rather have nationalised medicine.

But universal healthcare is more efficient and cheaper. Why would you choose inferior government over better government, when better government would improve standards of living AND leave more money in your paycheck?

There are things I 'trust' the government with. Streetnames, for example. They seem to be pretty good at getting the right names on the signs.

But I'd rather have nationalised medicine.

it doesnt matter, this country will never have an NHS.

we might end up with some kind of govt run health insurance like medicare but we will never nationalize medicine.

But universal healthcare is more efficient and cheaper. Why would you choose inferior government over better government, when better government would improve standards of living AND leave more money in your paycheck?

There are things I 'trust' the government with. Streetnames, for example. They seem to be pretty good at getting the right names on the signs.

But I'd rather have nationalised medicine.

You're looking for a rational reason for opposition to universal healthcare in the US, and you're not likely to find it. It'll be opposed in the US so long as it's something seen as a product of socialism. If France discovers the cure for cancer, it'll be shunned in the US for that reason. Okay, that's overstating things a bit, but not by much.

The stupid thing that I see is that those people who work very hard and can't afford heath care are in many cases die-hard Republican supporters because of morality issues. What's less moral than denying medical care to someone on the basis of how much money they make? Some parts of this country have Stockholm Syndrome when it comes to politics.

Hard work beats shitty government hand outs, its as simple as that.

Actaully, it isn't that simple. The debate as to whether or not a public healthcare system is more effective than a free market solution is not a simple one.

if it were as simple as you would like to believe, you wouldn't have such huge health expenditures and some of the poorest health in the developed world.

it doesnt matter, this country will never have an NHS.

we might end up with some kind of govt run health insurance like medicare but we will never nationalize medicine.

Crystal ball? Direct line to god?

This country will never escape British colonial rule....

Why do you think the US will never nationalise medicine? The current climate frowns upon it, because they've got you all so well trained to immediately make the sign of the cross at anything even resembling 'socialism', but America has a history of swings-and-roundabouts.

You're looking for a rational reason for opposition to universal healthcare in the US, and you're not likely to find it. It'll be opposed in the US so long as it's something seen as a product of socialism. If France discovers the cure for cancer, it'll be shunned in the US for that reason. Okay, that's overstating things a bit, but not by much.

The stupid thing that I see is that those people who work very hard and can't afford heath care are in many cases die-hard Republican supporters because of morality issues. What's less moral than denying medical care to someone on the basis of how much money they make? Some parts of this country have Stockholm Syndrome when it comes to politics.

And yet the Republicans spend more on health care (as a proportion of their GDP) then any other government in the world.

Crystal ball? Direct line to god?

This country will never escape British colonial rule....

Why do you think the US will never nationalise medicine? The current climate frowns upon it, because they've got you all so well trained to immediately make the sign of the cross at anything even resembling 'socialism', but America has a history of swings-and-roundabouts.

From your keyboard to God's inbox.

And yet the Republicans spend more on health care (as a proportion of their GDP) then any other government in the world.

That irony can be pretty ironic sometimes, huh?

You're looking for a rational reason for opposition to universal healthcare in the US, and you're not likely to find it. It'll be opposed in the US so long as it's something seen as a product of socialism. If France discovers the cure for cancer, it'll be shunned in the US for that reason. Okay, that's overstating things a bit, but not by much.

The stupid thing that I see is that those people who work very hard and can't afford heath care are in many cases die-hard Republican supporters because of morality issues. What's less moral than denying medical care to someone on the basis of how much money they make? Some parts of this country have Stockholm Syndrome when it comes to politics.

The US is a bit of an oiltanker when it comes to making changes in direction, but eventually, they seem to tend in the right direction. (Then they slip a bit, then some stupid shit gets allowed to happen, then everyone wakes up and improves things again for a while).

The real question isn't about whether the US will finally wake-up on the healthcare front, but how long those of us alive today will have been dead by the time it happens. :D

From your keyboard to God's inbox.

Nah, he doesn't respond to my e-mail anymore. I go straight in a spam folder.

Crystal ball? Direct line to god?

This country will never escape British colonial rule....

Why do you think the US will never nationalise medicine? The current climate frowns upon it, because they've got you all so well trained to immediately make the sign of the cross at anything even resembling 'socialism', but America has a history of swings-and-roundabouts.

because in the US money talks, we are too conservative, and it would require the taking over of what? a million businesses from doctors offices to for-profit hospitals.

The US is a bit of an oiltanker when it comes to making changes in direction, but eventually, they seem to tend in the right direction. (Then they slip a bit, then some stupid shit gets allowed to happen, then everyone wakes up and improves things again for a while).

The real question isn't about whether the US will finally wake-up on the healthcare front, but how long those of us alive today will have been dead by the time it happens. :D

I hope you're right. But "oil tanker" is a perfect analogy. If the US couldn't see that oil was becoming a problem in the 70s and steadfastly ignored that problem for 30+ years...well, that's just energy policy -- what makes anyone think that if my nation can't pull its head out over gasoline (because of the unreasonable sense of entitlement) that something even more important like healthcare is going to get any rational attention?

I dispute the idea that the current mixed public/private US health care system is so popular. For instance, a survey found that only 68% of republicans actually believe their system is the best in the world, and only 45% of them said that it would make them less likely to vote for someone if they proposed a national health care system.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2008-releases/republicans-democrats-disagree-us-health-care-system.html

because in the US money talks, we are too conservative, and it would require the taking over of what? a million businesses from doctors offices to for-profit hospitals.

There is resistance. Okay. That doesn't mean it won't happen. There was resistance to emancipation. There was resistance to homerule. There was resistance to crossethnic marriage.

I can envision a dark future for America, but I look at the general trend, and that's been a positive thing.

Yes - there are strong resistances right now. Half a century ago, your government seized an opportunity to try to concretise a type of anti-social theocracy. They did a good job. They've condition several generations with it, but there are increasingly swimmers against the tide. Not all Americans are convinced that I'm-alright-Jack is the epitome of policy.

As for the 'taking over of businesses'.... not at all. That might be one way to do it, but it's not the only.

I hope you're right. But "oil tanker" is a perfect analogy. If the US couldn't see that oil was becoming a problem in the 70s and steadfastly ignored that problem for 30+ years...well, that's just energy policy -- what makes anyone think that if my nation can't pull its head out over gasoline (because of the unreasonable sense of entitlement) that something even more important like healthcare is going to get any rational attention?

That is the sound of 'inevitability', Mr Anderson.

Eventually, the US will live up to it's potential. If it manages to not nuke itself, first.

That is the sound of 'inevitability', Mr Anderson.

Eventually, the US will live up to it's potential. If it manages to not nuke itself, first.

What do you think our potential is?

There is resistance. Okay. That doesn't mean it won't happen. There was resistance to emancipation. There was resistance to homerule. There was resistance to crossethnic marriage.

I can envision a dark future for America, but I look at the general trend, and that's been a positive thing.

Yes - there are strong resistances right now. Half a century ago, your government seized an opportunity to try to concretise a type of anti-social theocracy. They did a good job. They've condition several generations with it, but there are increasingly swimmers against the tide. Not all Americans are convinced that I'm-alright-Jack is the epitome of policy.

As for the 'taking over of businesses'.... not at all. That might be one way to do it, but it's not the only.


when it happens, you can post an "i told you so" thread and ill concede that you were right and i was wrong.

What do you think our potential is?

Nations are judged, not on how rich one can get, but on how they treat their least fortunate.

The US is in a blessed position with regard to natural resources, and yet it has inequality that would make parts of the Third World blush.

when it happens, you can post an "i told you so" thread and ill concede that you were right and i was wrong.

No need. I'm always right. We can take it as read, now.

:)

When it happens, I'll be too busy celebrating to gloat. (Or, more likely, decomposing merrily to myself).

Nations are judged, not on how rich one can get, but on how they treat their least fortunate.

The US is in a blessed position with regard to natural resources, and yet it has inequality that would make parts of the Third World blush.

That's one way to look at at, I guess.

I don't view nations like that. I don't know many people who do either.

Maybe its a socialist/communistic/ lefty European way of looking at things. That is not the red blooded American way.

The US is in a blessed position with regard to natural resources, and yet it has inequality that would make parts of the Third World blush.

That, in itself, does not imply that the poor are treated badly.

That is not the red blooded American way.

And that's precisely the problem.

And that's precisely the problem.

Not really.

No need. I'm always right. We can take it as read, now.

:)

When it happens, I'll be too busy celebrating to gloat. (Or, more likely, decomposing merrily to myself).

lol what a line "decomposing merrily to myself"

i like that.

in any case there is no sense debating what is going to happen. its more likely that somehow we will both be wrong.

That's one way to look at at, I guess.

I don't view nations like that. I don't many people who do either.

Maybe its a socialist/communistic/ lefty European way of looking at things. That is not the red blooded American way.

Maybe you're right. It would explain why the US basically, as a nation, doesn't give a shit. About foreigners. About each other. Maybe they should?

Incidentally, the lucky coincidence that SOME Americans HAVE looked at it that way, is probably the only reason there has yet to be a U.S.S.A. (In other words, without the safety net of alphabet agencies, the starving masses would probably have followed the trend of red revolution).

That, in itself, does not imply that the poor are treated badly.

In as much as the inequality is pretty much universal... healthcare, 'equity', political right, legal status... it pretty much does.

Some nations have an excuse for their starving, sick and huddled masses. There's nothing they can do about it.

We have no such position - we're privileged, and we still have starving, sick and huddled masses. Thus - we're worse than sub-Saharan Africa, because we HAVE the potential to be otherwise. There lot IS poor, but we TREAT our poor that way.

In as much as the inequality is pretty much universal... healthcare, 'equity', political right, legal status... it pretty much does.

Some nations have an excuse for their starving, sick and huddled masses. There's nothing they can do about it.

We have no such position - we're privileged, and we still have starving, sick and huddled masses. Thus - we're worse than sub-Saharan Africa, because we HAVE the potential to be otherwise. There lot IS poor, but we TREAT our poor that way.

the poor in the US get free health care, subsidized housing, food assistance.

they'll even give you extra money to buy your kids school clothes.

In as much as the inequality is pretty much universal... healthcare, 'equity', political right, legal status... it pretty much does.


If every single poor person in the US was given a house (if they don't already have one, remember - poor in the west is still quite rich to sub-Saharan Africans) and basic health care, the inequality would still be extremely high.


Some nations have an excuse for their starving, sick and huddled masses. There's nothing they can do about it.


I believe this to be absolute nonsense. But before I debate it, I want to know, why do you think these nations are so desperately impoverished and how responsible do you feel the leadership of those countries themselves hold?

the poor in the US get free health care, subsidized housing, food assistance.

they'll even give you extra money to buy your kids school clothes.

Yeah, it's the "near poor" who live in shit. You know that point when you make too much for government assistance and yet not quite enough to cover basic needs.

Yeah, it's the "near poor" who live in shit. You know that point when you make too much for government assistance and yet not quite enough to cover basic needs.

And yet the 'shit' is probably paradise compared to many sub-Saharan Africans.

Yeah, it's the "near poor" who live in shit. You know that point when you make too much for government assistance and yet not quite enough to cover basic needs.

I have yet to meet any of these "Near poor". Well, other then the ones who really cannot manage money for anything and blow it all on worthless junk, and then complain the government isn't doing enough to help them...

That's one way to look at at, I guess.

I don't view nations like that. I don't know many people who do either.

Maybe its a socialist/communistic/ lefty European way of looking at things. That is not the red blooded American way.

What does that even mean?

the poor in the some parts of the US get free health care, subsidized housing, food assistance where such programs are in place.

they'll even give you extra money to buy your kids school clothes.

Fixed.

And yet the 'shit' is probably paradise compared to many sub-Saharan Africans.

Of course it is. That doesn't make it any more fun when your choice is to either send your kids to bed without dinner or to skip eating again for the 4th day because it's right before pay day and you're out of money.

I have yet to meet any of these "Near poor". Well, other then the ones who really cannot manage money for anything and blow it all on worthless junk, and then complain the government isn't doing enough to help them...

One generalization for another. Yup. That's effective. :rolleyes:

I have yet to meet any of these "Near poor". Well, other then the ones who really cannot manage money for anything and blow it all on worthless junk, and then complain the government isn't doing enough to help them...

It's an entire demographic dude. Sociologist have found them lurking in urban America, living about 20% over the poverty level, and struggling with life.

I won't say none of them don't make shit decisions, in fact about 80% of them do, as do 80% of most Americans, only most of us have a little bit more of a stupidity buffer.

I have yet to meet any of these "Near poor". Well, other then the ones who really cannot manage money for anything and blow it all on worthless junk, and then complain the government isn't doing enough to help them...

Lemme guess, you live with your parents in a house, who make enough money to pay for a computer and a high speed internet connection

That's probably the reason why.

I have yet to meet any of these "Near poor". Well, other then the ones who really cannot manage money for anything and blow it all on worthless junk, and then complain the government isn't doing enough to help them...

Does "I have yet to meet" in any way equate to "they do not exist"?

Not no, but hell no.

Not really.

no no, that's pretty much exactly the problem. Once one gets over this irrational jingoism that believes that everything america does must be correct, and allows oneself to actually critically analyze the actions of our nation, we can begin to see some deeper fundamental problems that are not apparent when the analysis of the country consists of masturbatorially chanting "america, fuck yeah!"

Of course it is. That doesn't make it any more fun when your choice is to either send your kids to bed without dinner or to skip eating again for the 4th day because it's right before pay day and you're out of money.

Oh I agree, although these people exist in many countries in the west, and its a difficult problem to solve.

the poor in the US get free health care, subsidized housing, food assistance.

they'll even give you extra money to buy your kids school clothes.

I have been 'the poor in the US'. I didn't get free health care, subsidized housing or food assistance. I didn't get extra money to buy my kids school clothes. I didn't get free-fuck-all-to-do-shit.

no no, that's pretty much exactly the problem. Once one gets over this irrational jingoism that believes that everything america does must be correct, and allows oneself to actually critically analyze the actions of our nation, we can begin to see some deeper fundamental problems that are not apparent when the analysis of the country consists of masturbatorially chanting "america, fuck yeah!"

Oddly enough, there are a huge number of people on this forum that think the exact opposite. The whole "If America does it, it must be evil!" crowd. This is the same group of people that think Europe is perfect in every regard.

If every single poor person in the US was given a house (if they don't already have one, remember - poor in the west is still quite rich to sub-Saharan Africans) and basic health care, the inequality would still be extremely high.


Yes. But the situation would be better, wouldn't it. The gross gap of inequality would be ever-so-slightly-less gross?


I believe this to be absolute nonsense. But before I debate it, I want to know, why do you think these nations are so desperately impoverished and how responsible do you feel the leadership of those countries themselves hold?

I don't care what you 'believe'. In terms of resources, there simply isn't anywhere else in the world that comes close to the bounty the US has. Hell, we have more fresh water (for instance) than the rest of the world combined... by a long way.

And yet the 'shit' is probably paradise compared to many sub-Saharan Africans.

You keep making the comparison. But, is that really an excuse?

"Yes, we treat our poor like shit, but Zaire started it?"

Oddly enough, there are a huge number of people on this forum that think the exact opposite. The whole "If America does it, it must be evil!" crowd. This is the same group of people that think Europe is perfect in every regard.

extremes in any direction are not good, but when you look at countries with a higher per capita GDP, a higher median income, longer life expectancy, a generally higher life satisfaction rating, a smaller % of the population in poverty and less health care costs per capita, one begins to wonder...

I have yet to meet any of these "Near poor". Well, other then the ones who really cannot manage money for anything and blow it all on worthless junk, and then complain the government isn't doing enough to help them...

Hi. I'm 'the near poor'.

Now, we've met.