PDA

View Full Version : Form of government



sandman_1
11-02-2010, 08:45 PM
I am just curious to see what type of government people in the USA think they have?

j2k4
11-03-2010, 01:14 AM
I am just curious to see what type of government people in the USA think they have?

Ah - don't be coy, tell us what you think.

link2009
11-03-2010, 02:47 AM
I am just curious to see what type of government people in the USA think they have?

Ah - don't be coy, tell us what you think.

I agree. It is a little difficult to spark a debate when you don't state your viewpoint.

sandman_1
11-03-2010, 01:48 PM
I am curious to know since I hear our illustrious politicians saying that we are a Democracy and want to spread Democracy.

Last time I checked, we were a Constitutional Republic unless that has changed.

999969999
11-03-2010, 03:21 PM
Potato potata.

We can vote people out of power.

That's what matters to me.

sandman_1
11-03-2010, 07:53 PM
Potato potata.

We can vote people out of power.

That's what matters to me.

And that has what to do with post?

999969999
11-03-2010, 10:19 PM
Potato potata.

We can vote people out of power.

That's what matters to me.

And that has what to do with post?

What do you not understand about potato potata, man?!

bigboab
11-03-2010, 10:40 PM
It is hard to describe what kind of country the U.S.A.(they are not alone)is, when a party with 51%(or less) of the vote can do what they like, ignoring the wishes of the other 49%. That is not a Democracy in my book. Some people are banned from forming a political party, like the Communists and others. Why not let some of them stand for election and let the voters decide? Look at the way they have treated Cuba yet all the top brass have a big fat Cuban cigar stuck in their mouths. I wonder what would happen if Canada voted for communism?

There, that should liven things up a wee bit. I will get a reply from Kev when he gets his musket back out of the case again. After last night he thought it was safe to put it away again.:whistling

P.S. I know the post was directed at U.S. citizens. I could not resist.

devilsadvocate
11-03-2010, 10:55 PM
It is hard to describe what kind of country the U.S.A.(they are not alone)is, when a party with 51%(or less) of the vote can do what they like, ignoring the wishes of the other 49%. That is not a Democracy in my book. Some people are banned from forming a political party, like the Communists and others. Why not let some of them stand for election and let the voters decide? Look at the way they have treated Cuba yet all the top brass have a big fat Cuban cigar stuck in their mouths. I wonder what would happen if Canada voted for communism?

It was supposed to have been designed so that the minority isn't oppressed by the majority. In fact with the electoral college system and a propensity to gerimander electoral districts the populace minority can end up with more congressional might than the populace majority. The majority party gets to set the agenda, the minority party gets to derail it.

In the land of the free the amount of freedom depends on who gets to define the word. Oddly enough the more someone rants about freedoms the more likely they are to want to stop the ones they disprove of.

Liberals want to stop you getting fat, Conservatives want to stop you having sex.

j2k4
11-04-2010, 12:43 AM
Liberals want to stop you getting fat, Conservatives want to stop you having sex.

Oooh, very clever.

Put that on the next protest sign you make, and carry it at the liberal get-together of your choice.

sandman_1
11-04-2010, 06:17 AM
I guess one of the things that irk me is the fact that no one calls these politicians on it when they mention Democracy. No where in the founding documents of this country was Democracy ever mentioned. One quote, from James Madison, pretty much says it all in regards to Democracy that couldn't be truer:



Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever
been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found
incompatible with personal security or the rights of property:
and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent
in their deaths.

MagicNakor
11-04-2010, 06:48 AM
I wonder what would happen if Canada voted for communism?

Fun fact: For several hours in our last national election the Communists held an Ontario riding. It seems they vote in blocs.

:shuriken:

999969999
11-04-2010, 03:38 PM
I wonder how long it will be until our Democrat party will end the charade and just come right out and start calling themselves Communists?

bigboab
11-04-2010, 07:25 PM
Get real. You are more right wing than the Knesset. Compared to this countries politicians your Democratic Party is slightly to the right of our Conservative Party. The only thing to the right of them is the neo nazi British National Party.

clocker
11-04-2010, 11:47 PM
I wonder how long it will be until our Democrat party will end the charade and just come right out and start calling themselves Communists?
I wonder how long it will be until you learn what a Communist is.
Oh wait, what was I thinking?
You'll never learn that because facts are simply impediments to your agenda.

sandman_1
11-04-2010, 11:55 PM
Please stay on topic...

megabyteme
11-05-2010, 12:19 AM
Honestly, I have grown to favor socialism. It seems to meet the modern demands of people. Taxes are high, but the returns to the majority seem to be quite comfortable. Ask any of the Canadians on this board (all of the ones I know anyway) and you will get a picture that is far more favorable than any of the right-wing radio "personalities" will tell you.


Now for something completely different... (Monty Python's Holy Grail, scene 3)

Look up anarcho-syndicalist for an interesting, yet very far fetched form of government. Essentially, it's socialized anarchists. :)

[clop clop]
ARTHUR: Old woman!
DENNIS: Man!
ARTHUR: Old Man, sorry. What knight live in that castle over there?
DENNIS: I'm thirty seven.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I'm thirty seven -- I'm not old!
ARTHUR: Well, I can't just call you `Man'.
DENNIS: Well, you could say `Dennis'.
ARTHUR: Well, I didn't know you were called `Dennis.'
DENNIS: Well, you didn't bother to find out, did you?
ARTHUR: I did say sorry about the `old woman,' but from the behind
you looked--
DENNIS: What I object to is you automatically treat me like an inferior!
ARTHUR: Well, I AM king...
DENNIS: Oh king, eh, very nice. An' how'd you get that, eh? By
exploitin' the workers -- by 'angin' on to outdated imperialist dogma
which perpetuates the economic an' social differences in our society!
If there's ever going to be any progress--
WOMAN: Dennis, there's some lovely filth down here. Oh -- how d'you do?
ARTHUR: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, King of the Britons.
Who's castle is that?
WOMAN: King of the who?
ARTHUR: The Britons.
WOMAN: Who are the Britons?
ARTHUR: Well, we all are. we're all Britons and I am your king.
WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous
collective.
DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship.
A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
WOMAN: Oh there you go, bringing class into it again.
DENNIS: That's what it's all about if only people would--
ARTHUR: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives
in that castle?
WOMAN: No one live there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take
it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified
at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,
[angels sing]
her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur
from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I,
Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.
[singing stops]
That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power
derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical
aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power
just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just
because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd
put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here that,
eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me,
you saw it didn't you?

999969999
11-05-2010, 10:22 PM
Honestly, I have grown to favor socialism.

What a surprise!

j2k4
11-06-2010, 12:39 AM
Honestly, I have grown to favor socialism. It seems to meet the modern demands of people.

Here's an idea:

You go try it out for a few years, and get back to us.

megabyteme
11-06-2010, 01:20 AM
It's funny how you have both bought into the word as a negative. It makes me picture you guys running to the store every time a commercial comes on television. The highest standards of living in the world (for the masses, not the elite-the elite do VERY nicely here.) ARE socialist countries.

Have either of you truly risen among the social classes in your lifetime? I managed to work myself from (literally nothing) to lower middle-class before my body gave out. I'm 39. I take morphine twice a day for pain, and still can't afford health insurance!

I ask you both, how you can ethically, or intellectually, favor a system (US branded capitalism) that keeps 40% of the population in/below poverty?

j2k4
11-06-2010, 01:32 AM
It's funny how you have both bought into the word as a negative. It makes me picture you guys running to the store every time a commercial comes on television. The highest standards of living in the world (for the masses, not the elite-the elite do VERY nicely here.) ARE socialist countries.

Have either of you truly risen among the social classes in your lifetime? I managed to work myself from (literally nothing) to lower middle-class before my body gave out. I'm 39. I take morphine twice a day for pain, and still can't afford health insurance!

I ask you both, how you can ethically, or intellectually, favor a system (US branded capitalism) that keeps 40% of the population in/below poverty?

You are exhibiting so comprehensive a mis-understanding of circumstances as to defy description.

Here is a fact:

Everything you hate about Capitalism equates to a sub-set of this country's self-appointed elites, the ones who move among and between the highest echelons of both American political parties.

These are, for lack of a more refined descriptive, the type of people who we talk about when we refer to "Golden Parachutes", on the one hand, and, let us say, George Soros on the other.

The kind of people who, when a conservative says "Free Market", want you to hear "Status Quo".

Does that help?

megabyteme
11-06-2010, 02:23 AM
Forget the top 1%. Forget the top 30%. They have so much more than you could possibly earn in 20 lifetimes that they aren't even worth discussing. We'll just say that they like the system we they've got.

It's the bottom 40%- 120 MILLION people who have nothing, won't have anything, and if they (as a group) do better, the system rises to ensure they stay at the bottom.


Then there's the differing levels of middle-class. Almost all of us are defined by holding the vast majority of our "wealth" in our homes. That said, most of us just lost the majority of our "wealth" in this recent government-approved/protected land grab.

Now tell me that capitalism lets someone "rise up". AND what are we rising up in? The hope that we can someday be exempt from getting fucked.

sandman_1
11-06-2010, 03:51 AM
Since this thread is taking a different direction from what I intended, I guess I will chime in on this.

Although I don't endorse Socialism, I am aware that the rich, the 1% of the population that hold most of the wealth, run this country and basically "own" it. Don't believe me? Look at the bail-out. At first Congress says no, then all of sudden from some secret meetings at the last moment, things change. Then they blame all the foreclosures for why it happened. Yes that was part of the reason but it goes deeper than that. Ever heard of OTC Derivatives? Most people probably haven't. Frontline on PBS had a very informative program, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid, on these Derivatives that I suggest that everyone should watch. Not a Michael Moore fan but his last documentary, was pretty much spot on, Capitalism a Love Story. Good ole greed got us into this situation and it is good ole greed that will ensure that it continues. Like a economic expert said when asked by Frontline what the next bubble will be, "Take your pick, there are bubbles everywhere."

The American dream? Yea I use to believe that lie. There is no American Dream. I know plenty of hard working folks that work their butts off and never see any benefit from their labor. The American Dream is something the rich spoon feed you so you stay good citizens. There are nearly 250 millionaires in Congress right now. If they aren't a millionaire when they go in, they more than likely will be by the time they leave. Do you feel represented yet? What is laughable to me, is that there are so many people that believe the hype of left vs right, liberal vs conservative, Democrat vs Republican. The truth is, they do that on purpose so you are focused on petty arguments and not on how poor of a job they do representing you. The original point of this thread was to start a conversation of this corruption but I guess it flew over peoples heads I suppose. Something as simple as Republic vs Democracy I guess isn't being taught in school anymore or people are too complacent to even care. Anyway that is my two cents worth...

bigboab
11-06-2010, 06:30 AM
Since this thread is taking a different direction from what I intended, I guess I will chime in on this.

Although I don't endorse Socialism, I am aware that the rich, the 1% of the population that hold most of the wealth, run this country and basically "own" it. Don't believe me? Look at the bail-out. At first Congress says no, then all of sudden from some secret meetings at the last moment, things change. Then they blame all the foreclosures for why it happened. Yes that was part of the reason but it goes deeper than that. Ever heard of OTC Derivatives? Most people probably haven't. Frontline on PBS had a very informative program, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid, on these Derivatives that I suggest that everyone should watch. Not a Michael Moore fan but his last documentary, was pretty much spot on, Capitalism a Love Story. Good ole greed got us into this situation and it is good ole greed that will ensure that it continues. Like a economic expert said when asked by Frontline what the next bubble will be, "Take your pick, there are bubbles everywhere."

The American dream? Yea I use to believe that lie. There is no American Dream. I know plenty of hard working folks that work their butts off and never see any benefit from their labor. The American Dream is something the rich spoon feed you so you stay good citizens. There are nearly 250 millionaires in Congress right now. If they aren't a millionaire when they go in, they more than likely will be by the time they leave. Do you feel represented yet? What is laughable to me, is that there are so many people that believe the hype of left vs right, liberal vs conservative, Democrat vs Republican. The truth is, they do that on purpose so you are focused on petty arguments and not on how poor of a job they do representing you. The original point of this thread was to start a conversation of this corruption but I guess it flew over peoples heads I suppose. Something as simple as Republic vs Democracy I guess isn't being taught in school anymore or people are too complacent to even care. Anyway that is my two cents worth...

I agree with most of this post. We could add a lot of things that are surreptitiously done to keep the working man just that:-

Divide and conquer: Covered above, also we are brainwashed from day one to treat our neighbouring towns as rivals. Different religions as enemies.They are afraid that if all the Joe Soaps become friends their future would be down the tube.

Gambling: The rich speculate(gamble). If they win they keep the winnings. If they lose Joe Soap pays them back what they have lost+.(Banking rings bell?)

Lets Keep Prices Low For Our Customers: By the likes of Walmart screwing the farmers etc. into the ground to keep prices 'low' and share prices high. Also (screwing) putting all the small businesses out off business. Moving the hypermarkets out off town so they don't have to pay rates to the locals. Creating tax havens to avoid paying tax to the country.

Hypermarkets: Is that not a form of communism for the rich?:whistling

Where do we stop?

P.s. I'm havering, of course. I'll go back to bed.:rolleyes:

j2k4
11-06-2010, 02:13 PM
. Almost all of us are defined by holding the vast majority of our "wealth" in our homes. That said, most of us just lost the majority of our "wealth" in this recent government-approved/protected land grab.

I have a better idea.

Why don't you elucidate further on this ^ statement, then tell us which party(s) executed that last bit.

You may finish by telling us very precisely and exactly who you should be fearing; don't be afraid to look beyond political ideology.

999969999
11-06-2010, 06:05 PM
It's funny how you have both bought into the word as a negative. It makes me picture you guys running to the store every time a commercial comes on television. The highest standards of living in the world (for the masses, not the elite-the elite do VERY nicely here.) ARE socialist countries.

Have either of you truly risen among the social classes in your lifetime? I managed to work myself from (literally nothing) to lower middle-class before my body gave out. I'm 39. I take morphine twice a day for pain, and still can't afford health insurance!

I ask you both, how you can ethically, or intellectually, favor a system (US branded capitalism) that keeps 40% of the population in/below poverty?

I dispute the validity of your claim that anyone (including socialist countries) has a higher standard of living than the United States. I've been on vacations with my family to various European countries and while they are nice to visit, I am always glad to be back in the United States after the vacation is over.

My life has just begun, so no, I haven't "risen among the social classes" yet. My family is what you would probably consider to be rich, so there is not a lot of rising to do. I probably won't have the same experiences as you have had. But I still think that the United States offers the greatest opportunity for upward mobility of any nation on the planet. Most of it is just from hard work, wise investing, clever strategies, risk taking, and yes, a little bit of luck. When my ancestors moved here from Austria in the 1800's they were poor as dirt, but look at us now!

Your situation may be a case of bad luck. But, I believe the majority of that 40% you claim is poor are quite simply lazy or unwilling to take the risks necessary to reap the rewards of the capitalist system. If my ancestors had played it safe and just stayed in Austria, I would probably be a poor kid in Austria right now. It was a risky but profitable adventure for them to come here from Austria.

Socialism is negative because it seeks to strip away wealth from people like me and give it to poor lazy people who should get off their asses and go to work.

bigboab
11-06-2010, 08:58 PM
It's funny how you have both bought into the word as a negative. It makes me picture you guys running to the store every time a commercial comes on television. The highest standards of living in the world (for the masses, not the elite-the elite do VERY nicely here.) ARE socialist countries.

Have either of you truly risen among the social classes in your lifetime? I managed to work myself from (literally nothing) to lower middle-class before my body gave out. I'm 39. I take morphine twice a day for pain, and still can't afford health insurance!



I ask you both, how you can ethically, or intellectually, favor a system (US branded capitalism) that keeps 40% of the population in/below poverty?

I dispute the validity of your claim that anyone (including socialist countries) has a higher standard of living than the United States. I've been on vacations with my family to various European countries and while they are nice to visit, I am always glad to be back in the United States after the vacation is over.

My life has just begun, so no, I haven't "risen among the social classes" yet. My family is what you would probably consider to be rich, so there is not a lot of rising to do. I probably won't have the same experiences as you have had. But I still think that the United States offers the greatest opportunity for upward mobility of any nation on the planet. Most of it is just from hard work, wise investing, clever strategies, risk taking, and yes, a little bit of luck. When my ancestors moved here from Austria in the 1800's they were poor as dirt, but look at us now!

Your situation may be a case of bad luck. But, I believe the majority of that 40% you claim is poor are quite simply lazy or unwilling to take the risks necessary to reap the rewards of the capitalist system. If my ancestors had played it safe and just stayed in Austria, I would probably be a poor kid in Austria right now. It was a risky but profitable adventure for them to come here from Austria.

Socialism is negative because it seeks to strip away wealth from people like me and give it to poor lazy people who should get off their asses and go to work.


How many of those idle lazy people are conveniently out of work in order to keep wages low? Let everyone start from square one and see how many 'people like me' have jobs. A lot of business people struggle all their lives and never get to be 'people like you' because they are honest and overtaxed. They don't secret their actual wealth away in tax havens.

If I had my way, you're lucky I don't! nobody would inherit any more than a years average wages. The land would belong to the country and not to someone who was good with a bow and arrow 700 years ago(U.K), a gun 200 years ago(U.S.A.). Just remember that the native Americans were community living peoples. That is communism to you. 'People like you' took their land off them. I don't see you condemn the idle rich. Did you visit the French Riviera on your travels. Did you see the squander and waste while a few hundred miles across the the water kids are dying every day for the want of a few cents that would keep them nourished. Your kind make me sick.:angry:

999969999
11-06-2010, 09:56 PM
I dispute the validity of your claim that anyone (including socialist countries) has a higher standard of living than the United States. I've been on vacations with my family to various European countries and while they are nice to visit, I am always glad to be back in the United States after the vacation is over.

My life has just begun, so no, I haven't "risen among the social classes" yet. My family is what you would probably consider to be rich, so there is not a lot of rising to do. I probably won't have the same experiences as you have had. But I still think that the United States offers the greatest opportunity for upward mobility of any nation on the planet. Most of it is just from hard work, wise investing, clever strategies, risk taking, and yes, a little bit of luck. When my ancestors moved here from Austria in the 1800's they were poor as dirt, but look at us now!

Your situation may be a case of bad luck. But, I believe the majority of that 40% you claim is poor are quite simply lazy or unwilling to take the risks necessary to reap the rewards of the capitalist system. If my ancestors had played it safe and just stayed in Austria, I would probably be a poor kid in Austria right now. It was a risky but profitable adventure for them to come here from Austria.

Socialism is negative because it seeks to strip away wealth from people like me and give it to poor lazy people who should get off their asses and go to work.


How many of those idle lazy people are conveniently out of work in order to keep wages low? Let everyone start from square one and see how many 'people like me' have jobs. A lot of business people struggle all their lives and never get to be 'people like you' because they are honest and overtaxed. They don't secret their actual wealth away in tax havens.

If I had my way, you're lucky I don't! nobody would inherit any more than a years average wages. The land would belong to the country and not to someone who was good with a bow and arrow 700 years ago(U.K), a gun 200 years ago(U.S.A.). Just remember that the native Americans were community living peoples. That is communism to you. 'People like you' took their land off them. I don't see you condemn the idle rich. Did you visit the French Riviera on your travels. Did you see the squander and waste while a few hundred miles across the the water kids are dying every day for the want of a few cents that would keep them nourished. Your kind make me sick.:angry:

Man, this kind of logic is dangerous and pervasive. Much like affirmative action which seeks to punish people like me because I was born into an Austrian family (which I had no control over), you think I should be punished because I was born into a wealthy family (also which I had no control over). But the latter is a result of a lot of hard work by my ancestors. If they can not pass down their wealth to their children and grandchildren, etc., then what is their incentive for hard work and building a fortune over generations? Why shouldn't they just sit on their asses, too, and wait for the government to give them everything?

And yes, I have been to the French Riviera, and it was fun. Maybe I should be stoned to death for that?

"Just remember that the native Americans were community living peoples. That is communism to you."

Good point. The Native Americans had this land for a lot longer than we had it, but they did almost nothing with it. That is the problem with communism. It just doesn't work.

Capitalism is what built this country and made it a great place to live. Abandon it at your own peril.

megabyteme
11-06-2010, 10:21 PM
. Almost all of us are defined by holding the vast majority of our "wealth" in our homes. That said, most of us just lost the majority of our "wealth" in this recent government-approved/protected land grab.

I have a better idea.

Why don't you elucidate further on this ^ statement, then tell us which party(s) executed that last bit.

You may finish by telling us very precisely and exactly who you should be fearing; don't be afraid to look beyond political ideology.

The topic of this thread is "forms of government". I stood up in favor of socialism due to its ability to meet the needs of the masses. You are the one who wants to look dem/rep on this one. The massively rich (which wouldn't have control in a socialist gov.) are the ones who were "too big to fail" here. Nice system. :ermm:



But, I believe the majority of that 40% you claim is poor are quite simply lazy or unwilling to take the risks necessary to reap the rewards of the capitalist system. If my ancestors had played it safe and just stayed in Austria, I would probably be a poor kid in Austria right now. It was a risky but profitable adventure for them to come here from Austria.

Socialism is negative because it seeks to strip away wealth from people like me and give it to poor lazy people who should get off their asses and go to work.

Calling the bottom 40% lazy is an entirely ignorant statement. I've done the 3 jobs (70+ hours/week) thing. That doesn't solve ALL of one's problems, either...

How does one take risks when they cannot afford to eat healthy/nutritious food, don't own a home, are behind on their rent, have more debt (because of unmet basic needs) than they can pay back, etc.

I don't begrudge your luck, but your ignorance pains me. If you have nothing to invest, it won't grow.

bigboab
11-06-2010, 10:37 PM
Good point. The Native Americans had this land for a lot longer than we had it, but they did almost nothing with it. That is the problem with communism. It just doesn't work.




It worked for hundreds of years before your ancestors and people of that ilk arrived and took their lands, shot most of them and put the survivors in concentration camps reservations.



Capitalism is what built this country and made it a great place to live. Abandon it at your own peril.


No slavery is what made your country 'great'.

999969999
11-06-2010, 10:42 PM
I have a better idea.

Why don't you elucidate further on this ^ statement, then tell us which party(s) executed that last bit.

You may finish by telling us very precisely and exactly who you should be fearing; don't be afraid to look beyond political ideology.

The topic of this thread is "forms of government". I stood up in favor of socialism due to its ability to meet the needs of the masses. You are the one who wants to look dem/rep on this one. The massively rich (which wouldn't have control in a socialist gov.) are the ones who were "too big to fail" here. Nice system. :ermm:



But, I believe the majority of that 40% you claim is poor are quite simply lazy or unwilling to take the risks necessary to reap the rewards of the capitalist system. If my ancestors had played it safe and just stayed in Austria, I would probably be a poor kid in Austria right now. It was a risky but profitable adventure for them to come here from Austria.

Socialism is negative because it seeks to strip away wealth from people like me and give it to poor lazy people who should get off their asses and go to work.

Calling the bottom 40% lazy is an entirely ignorant statement. I've done the 3 jobs (70+ hours/week) thing. That doesn't solve ALL of one's problems, either...

How does one take risks when they cannot afford to eat healthy/nutritious food, don't own a home, are behind on their rent, have more debt (because of unmet basic needs) than they can pay back, etc.

I don't begrudge your luck, but your ignorance pains me. If you have nothing to invest, it won't grow.

As for the debt, one lesson my parents taught me is to do everything possible to never go into debt. Don't spend more money than you make. If it means you live really hard, then that's what you do to stay out of debt. My family has always taught me that people who owe debts will never get ahead in life. Every cent you spend in interest is lost to any possible investment purposes.

You need to look at this way, my ancestors arrived here with nothing but the clothes on their backs. They were worse off than you, and yet they managed to turn it all around. Was it a difficult life them? Of course! But they did it on their own without any help from the government.

And I have seen some extremely lazy people who are on various government handout programs. They do need to get off their asses and go to work. They are abusing the system and taking away funds which could go to the truly needy people who are physically disabled and cannot work.

999969999
11-06-2010, 10:47 PM
Good point. The Native Americans had this land for a lot longer than we had it, but they did almost nothing with it. That is the problem with communism. It just doesn't work.




It worked for hundreds of years before your ancestors and people of that ilk arrived and took their lands, shot most of them and put the survivors in concentration camps reservations.

Compare their "civilization" at that time-- living in tents-- to that of the Europeans. The Europeans were lightyears ahead of them. Why? They weren't communists.

bigboab
11-06-2010, 10:57 PM
It worked for hundreds of years before your ancestors and people of that ilk arrived and took their lands, shot most of them and put the survivors in concentration camps reservations.

Compare their "civilization" at that time-- living in tents-- to that of the Europeans. The Europeans were lightyears ahead of them. Why? They weren't communists.


With that kind of attitude there is no point of me carrying on this debate. I can understand now why you want your part of the country to remain fair haired, blue eyed and white.

devilsadvocate
11-06-2010, 11:05 PM
So 9.

Have you gone out into the world to be a self made man or are you living off the sweat of your ancestors? Are you in the position you are in now because of your own hard work or because of the family (membership of which you had no choice in) you were born into?

One of my first encounters with you was about your parents buying you a car. Your attitude was why work to buy your own when someone will buy one for you. You called me a foolish for not letting my father buy me one when I was a young man.

Now I'm seeing you on a high perch saying that people are poor because they are lazy.

clocker
11-07-2010, 12:39 AM
Man, this kind of logic is dangerous and pervasive. Much like affirmative action which seeks to punish people like me because I was born into an Austrian family (which I had no control over), you think I should be punished because I was born into a wealthy family (also which I had no control over). But the latter is a result of a lot of hard work by my ancestors.
You should be neither punished nor rewarded.
You should be judged on the basis of your abilities and progress, your ancestors triumphs being irrelevant.

To date, I'd say you've risen to the level of "Parasite", not bad, considering.

"Just remember that the native Americans were community living peoples. That is communism to you."

Good point. The Native Americans had this land for a lot longer than we had it, but they did almost nothing with it. That is the problem with communism. It just doesn't work.
.
Well, they managed to live on the land sustainably for quite a while.
Indians did not build WalMarts and poison the air with hydrocarbons.
They managed not to turn the midwest into the Dust Bowl.

Stupid communists.

megabyteme
11-07-2010, 05:22 AM
To date, I'd say you've risen to the level of "Parasite", not bad, considering.

http://www.crawlersmileys.com/img/smileys/lol.gif

clocker
11-07-2010, 11:23 AM
I dispute the validity of your claim that anyone (including socialist countries) has a higher standard of living than the United States. I've been on vacations with my family to various European countries and while they are nice to visit, I am always glad to be back in the United States after the vacation is over.


You dispute this claim based on a few vacations you took?
By almost any metric you choose the US trails other developed countries...health, quality of life, education...you pick it, we lose.
We do seem to be the most obese, so there's that.
USA, Fuck Yeah!

j2k4
11-07-2010, 04:38 PM
I dispute the validity of your claim that anyone (including socialist countries) has a higher standard of living than the United States. I've been on vacations with my family to various European countries and while they are nice to visit, I am always glad to be back in the United States after the vacation is over.


You dispute this claim based on a few vacations you took?
By almost any metric you choose the US trails other developed countries...health, quality of life, education...you pick it, we lose.
We do seem to be the most obese, so there's that.
USA, Fuck Yeah!

And you backstop your own views with U.N studies.

This would be the same U.N. whose Human Rights Council (you know -China, Cuba, Libya and Saudi Arabia?) is about to hear testimony from dis-status-fied Americans about how horrible things are here?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/04/united-nations-human-rights-council/

How much American blood, sweat or money do you figure we'd have to give away to move up on your favored U.N. rankings?

You play the sheep to the U.N.'s beneficent 'shepherd'.

999969999
11-07-2010, 05:54 PM
Parasite?!?

More like worker bee.

My official job description, for tax purposes, in my family's business is "Purchasing and Logistics Management"

I'll admit I don't work as hard as some people, but I do work.

999969999
11-07-2010, 06:30 PM
I dispute the validity of your claim that anyone (including socialist countries) has a higher standard of living than the United States. I've been on vacations with my family to various European countries and while they are nice to visit, I am always glad to be back in the United States after the vacation is over.


You dispute this claim based on a few vacations you took?
By almost any metric you choose the US trails other developed countries...health, quality of life, education...you pick it, we lose.
We do seem to be the most obese, so there's that.
USA, Fuck Yeah!

Hey, at least I've actually been over there and have seen what their standard of living is like compared to ours, and there is no comparison. I just thought we had crowds at stores and restaurants, and traffic congestion before the first time I went on a trip to Europe while I was still in high school. Little shitty apartments all cramped up together, narrow streets, and the vast majority of the people over there were forced to use public transportation which sucks compared to having your own car and actually being able to drive it without having to deal with traffic nightmares. I've been on 5 trips over there so far, and none of them made me even the least bit interested in moving over there. The only one I found even remotely interesting for future trips was Finland.

And I'm not just comparing the crowds and traffic to Eagar, but also to places like Phoenix, San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle. As bad as they are in terms of traffic, they still don't even come close to European countries. I am always glad to get back home. It makes me appreciate what I have over here.

And if you dislike the U.S. so much, you need to keep in mind that we won't keep you here against your will. You are free to leave at any time.

sandman_1
11-07-2010, 08:53 PM
9 said:

My life has just begun, so no, I haven't "risen among the social classes" yet. My family is what you would probably consider to be rich, so there is not a lot of rising to do.

Your situation may be a case of bad luck. But, I believe the majority of that 40% you claim is poor are quite simply lazy or unwilling to take the risks necessary to reap the rewards of the capitalist system. If my ancestors had played it safe and just stayed in Austria, I would probably be a poor kid in Austria right now. It was a risky but profitable adventure for them to come here from Austria.


Sounds like something someone from a privileged background would say. Most of the time, most people can't invest and live pay check to pay check. If you ever started out poor, you would know this. Ever hear of the old saying, "It takes money to make money"?. That is the truth and if you have no spare income, then how are you going to invest or try something "risky" as you put it? You assume too much. Calling people lazy when you haven't walked in their shoes is just dumb. You have no idea of what they have been through.

Put this in perspective, in 2009, there were 7.8 millionaires in the USA(Source:Business Week). Compared to the total population, 307,006,550(Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division), that is only %0.03 of the total population. Affluent people with $500,000+, was 12.7 million, only %0.04 of the total population. Starting to get the picture that only a SMALL percentage of people hold the all the wealth? The American Dream, yea right...

Also there is a huge disparage between average CEO vs average worker employee pay. In 2007 it was 344 to 1!! In 2008, despite economic problems we all know about, it declined slightly, 319 to 1. The people making the CEO and the business money, get the table scrapings pretty much.

Capitalism to me is the exploitation of the population for the benefit of the few. They keep the peasants civility in check with lies and spin like, "If you work hard, you too can be rich!!". Until people wake up out of their dream world, this exploitation will continue.

Just one of the several reasons why I pirate and don't feel one bit bad about it.

clocker
11-07-2010, 11:06 PM
You dispute this claim based on a few vacations you took?
By almost any metric you choose the US trails other developed countries...health, quality of life, education...you pick it, we lose.
We do seem to be the most obese, so there's that.
USA, Fuck Yeah!

And you backstop your own views with U.N studies.

This would be the same U.N. whose Human Rights Council (you know -China, Cuba, Libya and Saudi Arabia?) is about to hear testimony from dis-status-fied Americans about how horrible things are here?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/04/united-nations-human-rights-council/

How much American blood, sweat or money do you figure we'd have to give away to move up on your favored U.N. rankings?

You play the sheep to the U.N.'s beneficent 'shepherd'.
I'm sorry, is Glen Beck telling you that the US has the best health care, education and quality of life?
I can see where his (and by extension, Fox News) views are confusing you.

A follower of Fox really has no room to call anyone else a "sheep" by the way.

megabyteme
11-08-2010, 05:52 AM
Citing Fox as credible source...

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/54/Ngpph9yUOk3t8w7xhQz5WwfXo1_r1_500.jpg

j2k4
11-08-2010, 10:58 AM
Citing Fox as credible source...

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/54/Ngpph9yUOk3t8w7xhQz5WwfXo1_r1_500.jpg

Hmm.

You mean to say it isn't really happening?

You mean to say the Packers didn't beat the Cowboys?

The republicans didn't take the House?

j2k4
11-08-2010, 10:59 AM
And you backstop your own views with U.N studies.

This would be the same U.N. whose Human Rights Council (you know -China, Cuba, Libya and Saudi Arabia?) is about to hear testimony from dis-status-fied Americans about how horrible things are here?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/04/united-nations-human-rights-council/

How much American blood, sweat or money do you figure we'd have to give away to move up on your favored U.N. rankings?

You play the sheep to the U.N.'s beneficent 'shepherd'.
I'm sorry, is Glen Beck telling you that the US has the best health care, education and quality of life?
I can see where his (and by extension, Fox News) views are confusing you.

A follower of Fox really has no room to call anyone else a "sheep" by the way.

I stand by my post, mon frere.

megabyteme
11-08-2010, 11:28 AM
Citing Fox as credible source...

Hmm.

You mean to say it isn't really happening?

You mean to say the Packers didn't beat the Cowboys?

The republicans didn't take the House?

I will at least give that article credit for being an editorial that was presented as such, not an editorial disguised as ''unbiased news".

Admit it, the monkey doing a facepalm was kinda cool. :D

clocker
11-08-2010, 11:38 AM
I'm sorry, is Glen Beck telling you that the US has the best health care, education and quality of life?
I can see where his (and by extension, Fox News) views are confusing you.

A follower of Fox really has no room to call anyone else a "sheep" by the way.

I stand by my post, mon frere.
Of course you do...facts be damned.
Care to share any sources that backstop your delusions?

999969999
11-08-2010, 05:41 PM
And you backstop your own views with U.N studies.

This would be the same U.N. whose Human Rights Council (you know -China, Cuba, Libya and Saudi Arabia?) is about to hear testimony from dis-status-fied Americans about how horrible things are here?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/04/united-nations-human-rights-council/

How much American blood, sweat or money do you figure we'd have to give away to move up on your favored U.N. rankings?

You play the sheep to the U.N.'s beneficent 'shepherd'.
I'm sorry, is Glen Beck telling you that the US has the best health care, education and quality of life?
I can see where his (and by extension, Fox News) views are confusing you.

A follower of Fox really has no room to call anyone else a "sheep" by the way.

Fox is the only station that comes even half-way close to being balanced.

But, oh that's right, liberals don't want to see or hear anything from the other point of view.

j2k4
11-08-2010, 08:43 PM
I'm sorry, is Glen Beck telling you that the US has the best health care?

No, this:


A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very
interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations
International Health Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after
diagnosis:

U.S. 65% England 46% Canada 42%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment
within six months:

U.S. 93% England 15% Canada 43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:

U.S. 90% England 15% Canada 43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:

U.S. 77% England 40% Canada 43%

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:

U.S. 71 England 14 Canada 18

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in
"excellent health":

U.S. 12% England 2% Canada 6%

j2k4
11-08-2010, 08:45 PM
Hmm.

You mean to say it isn't really happening?

You mean to say the Packers didn't beat the Cowboys?

The republicans didn't take the House?

I will at least give that article credit for being an editorial that was presented as such, not an editorial disguised as ''unbiased news".

Well, which is it?

You can't have it both ways.

clocker
11-09-2010, 03:58 PM
Why not?
Having it both ways is the very cornerstone of Faux News.

MagicNakor
11-09-2010, 04:51 PM
There is no United Nations International Health Organization; there is a World Health Organization which is part of the UN. Perhaps pedantic, but....

Investor's Business Daily has no record of any such article (via their website (www.investors.com)). They did run an editorial (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=503058) where the author claimed Professor Hawking would be dead if he lived in England due to the NHS; it was quickly refuted (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/12/birthers-stephen-hawking-paul-rowen) by Hawking (who both lives in England and uses the NHS). The IBD editorial ammendment acknowledges that Professor Hawking lives in England, but made no mention of his mortal status.

The WHO statistics (http://www.who.int/healthinfo/survey/en/) are available and do not correspond with your citations, in value or detail. No matter, I'm game.

Cancer Survival Rates After 5 Years
Canada- ~62% (http://www.cancer.ca/Canada-wide/About%20cancer/Cancer%20statistics/Stats%20at%20a%20glance/General%20cancer%20stats.aspx?sc_lang=en)
United Kingdom- ~58% (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/can0410.pdf)
United States- ~66% (http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html#survival)

Cancer survival rates change depending on the type of cancer, its aggressiveness, location, etc. For example, the breast cancer survival rate (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18639491) is 83.9% in the US, 69.7% in the UK. It's a different picture once insurance is added to the equation (http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/content/vol58/issue1/images/large/9fig12.jpeg): 85% survival rate with private insurance, 75% for uninsured/medicaid. The disparity (http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/58/1/9) in population demographic is intriguing, but I suspect has to do with the economic demographics. Colorectal cancer has a 5-year survival rate of 63% for the insured but 49% for the uninsured/Medicaid.

Diabetes Diagnosis/Treatment in 6 Months
This one is a bit bizarre. What is meant by receiving treatment? Insulin and blood sugar monitoring? This is done when the diagnosis is confirmed. Kidney dialysis? Limb amputation? With proper care, diabetes shouldn't advance that far. Check-ups are generally performed on an annual basis, as recommended. But as November is Diabetes Awareness Month:
Diabetes Mortality Rates
Canada- ~31,765 (2006) (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/dic-dac99/index-eng.php)
United Kingdom- 5583 (2008, if the link doesn't work properly go directly from www.nchod.nhs.uk -> Indicators as the site uses Java) (http://www.nchod.nhs.uk/NCHOD/Compendium.nsf/17b8958892856d44802573a30020fcd9/f25cddd430b28c60652570d1001cb769!OpenDocument)
United States- 71,382 (2007) (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm)
Adjusted by population:
Canada- mortality rate of 1.37%/diabetes rate of 5.87%
United Kingdom- mortality rate of 0.28%/diabetes rate of 2.84%
United States- mortality rate of 0.35%/diabetes rate of 5.71%
Note: The prevalence numbers are inaccurate (at least for Canada) as we passed the 2030 projections 3 years ago. Current prevalence indicates ~10% by 2020 due to a combination of aging populace and rising obesity. I suspect the other nations' figures are similarly inaccurate for the same indicators.

Seniors' Hip Replacement (within 6 months)
This fact seems to come from Congressman Mark Kirk (10th District, Illinois), or at least his website. (http://kirk.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3621&Itemid=88) He doesn't cite a source but he does have some pretty spiffy charts. In that spirit I now present two of my own charts:
http://asecondhandconjecture.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/pirates_and_globalwarming.jpg
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/5412/statsontap.png

Now, hip (and knee) replacements are usually considered elective surgery because it's not a life-threatening condition. This means that the wait-time for those surgeries can be quite lengthy, but the wait also has tremendous variance by year and even by province. If one decides to go to a private clinic to bypass the system, the average cost for a total hip replacement are:
Canada- $11,600 (including 11 days convalescence and physiotherapy) (http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20060501_125881_125881)
United Kingdom- $11,285-$14,347 (http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/hospitaltreatment/whatdoesitcost/hip-replacement/)
United States- $45,000 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/business/11hip.html?pagewanted=1)

Since these statistics aren't done in 6 month measures but in annual:
Canada- 23,000 or 1 per 1,487 people (http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/06/16/hip-knee-replacements.html)
United Kingdom- 43,500 or 1 per 1,426 people (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/320591.stm)
United States- 120,000 or 1 per 2,583 people (http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/h/hip_replacement/stats.htm)

Osteoarthritis is the leading cause for hip (and knee) replacements. The incidence rate is similiar for all three countries:
Canada- 10% of the population (3.3 million) (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-619-m/2006003/4053549-eng.htm)
United Kingdom- 8.5 million (13.8% of population) (http://www.patient.co.uk/health/Osteoarthritis.htm)
United States- 27 million (8.7% of population) (http://www.cdc.gov/arthritis/data_statistics/arthritis_related_stats.htm)

Combined, these stats give us an approximate ratio of how many people who require surgery will receive it in a given year. Note that not all cases of osteoarthritis will require total hip replacement, so this is a rough calculation at best:
Canada- 0.0069 surgeries per patient per year
United Kingdom- 0.0051 surgeries per patient per year
United States- 0.0044 surgeries per patient per year


Specialist Referral Wait-Time
This is simply misleading and very difficult to verify. StatsCanada released a report in 2008 (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/alt_formats/hpb-dgps/pdf/pubs/system-regime/2008-fed-comp-indicat/index-eng.pdf) that suggests a median wait-time of 4.3 weeks for a specialist. 46.2% of Canadian patients waited less than one month for a specialist physician visit, 40.3% waited for 1-3 months, and 13.6% waited over three months. There are disparities (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/04/21/health-wait-times.html) and wait-times vary by speciality and province. The UK has a neat site (http://www.nhs.uk/servicedirectories/Pages/ServiceSearch.aspx) where the average wait can be checked by area and by hospital, but as the only areas I'm even vaguely familiar with are Swansea and Leeds I'll leave that to anyone curious. By comparision, the median wait-time (http://www.merritthawkins.com/pdf/mha2009waittimesurvey.pdf) in the USA for a specialist is 20.5 days. For the family doctor it is 20.3 days. Medicaid is accepted by 55.4%. The figure sounds good (~20 days), but it is standardized for the nation. The data shows average wait-time and coverage is extremely regional: at 63(!) days for the general practioner, Boston is the longest wait in the country, Miami is the shortest at 7. 94% of family practices in Denver will accept Medicaid, in LA a mere 30%. In Dallas and Philadelphia, 8% of cardiologists will accept Medicaid. There are other interesting figures in that survey (in LA the shortest wait was 1 day, the longest 365+); it is interesting reading. Physicians per capita (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_phy_per_1000_peo-physicians-per-1-000-people) is similar in all three countries: 2.1 per 1000 in Canada, 2.2 per 1000 in the UK, 2.3 per 1000 in the USA. The Commonwealth Fund study (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Surveys/2008/2008-Commonwealth-Fund-International-Health-Policy-Survey-of-Sicker-Adults.aspx) seems to be where this "U.S. 77% England 40% Canada 43%" wait-time comes from; however, the same study indicates 54% of adults with chronic conditions had access problems (defined as skipping medication or not filling an Rx, not visiting a doctor when having a meidcal problem, not getting a recommended test, treatment or followup) due to cost in the USA, 13% in the UK, 25% in Canada. It too is interesting reading, if nothing else check out the survey chartpack.

Number of MRI Scanners per million
Inaccurate once more. (http://www.irdes.fr/EcoSante/DownLoad/OECDHealthData_FrequentlyRequestedData.xls)
Canada- 6.7 per million
United Kingdom- 5.6 per million
United States- 25.9 per million

Sure, the USA has a lot of MRI scanners. It also has a lot of CT scanners:
Canada- 12.7 per million
United Kingdom- 7.4 per million
United States- 34.3 per million

If it's a contest of who has the most toys, Japan has 43.1 MRI scanners per million and 97.3 CT scanners per million. The USA spends a lot of money on its health care system and those machines are expensive.

As a percentage of GDP:
Canada- 10.4%
United Kingdom- 8.7%
United States- 16%

and per capita:
Canada- $4406
United Kingdom- $3129
United States- $7538

Self-reporting Seniors in "excellent health"
This one reminds me of OAP coffee. It could be an excellent week or an awful one, depending on who turned up. A better metric is life expectancy for females and males at 65:
Canada- 21.3/18.1
United Kingdom- 20.2/17.6
United States- 19.8/17.1

It's well-known that with enough money, medical treatment/care is readily available and of excellent quality in the USA. Changes to its health care system aren't targeted to the people with enough money for readily available and excellent treatment.

Median Income by Household (in adjusted US dollars, after taxes)
Canada- $63,884 (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/100617/dq100617c-eng.htm)
United Kingdom- $39,900 (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo060719/text/60719w1831.htm)
United States- $49,777 (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/H08_2009.xls)

Self-reporting Economic Status (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Surveys/2008/2008-Commonwealth-Fund-International-Health-Policy-Survey-of-Sicker-Adults.aspx)

CA UK US
Much above average 10% 8% 9%
Somewhat above average 19% 13% 19%
Average 20% 22% 17%
Somewhat below average 19% 20% 22%
Much below average 26% 22% 28%
Not Sure 3% 7% 1%
Decline to Answer 4% 7% 3%

On the whole, it doesn't make sense to compare the USA's system (or proposed system) with those of Canada or the UK. They're two different animals. A more apt comparision would be with Switzerland, which makes health insurance compulsory for anyone living in Switzerland. The basic insurance is standardised throughout the country as its coverage is defined by the government; insurance companies are required to provide this package and are not allowed to make money off of it. I think it is analogous to Medicaid but am not sure. Extended coverage is allowed to be offered and these packages are where the companies make their money. There are regulations on costs (basic fees, maximum allowed deductibles) and offerings. However, while the basic package must be standard, the extended coverage is allowed to be discriminatory. I suspect it isn't mentioned as a model for comparision because Switzerland is relatively unknown amongst the general American populace; I would hope that the American policy makers are informed of the Swiss model.

Just For Fun (Switzerland)
5-Year Cancer Survival Rate: Colon 60% Breast 82%
Diabetes Mortality/Incidence Rate: 0.01%/4.68%
Physicians per 1000: 3.6
12.9 MRI scanners per million/32.8 CT scanners per million
Expenditure %GDP/per capita: 10.7%/$4810
Life Expectancy at 65 (female/male): 22.3/18.9
Median Household Income (after taxes, US$): $78,291

:shuriken:

999969999
11-09-2010, 05:00 PM
Cool map! Go Utah Mormons!

bigboab
11-09-2010, 07:32 PM
Just For Fun (Switzerland)
5-Year Cancer Survival Rate: Colon 60% Breast 82%
Diabetes Mortality/Incidence Rate: 0.01%/4.68%
Physicians per 1000: 3.6
12.9 MRI scanners per million/32.8 CT scanners per million
Expenditure %GDP/per capita: 10.7%/$4810
Life Expectancy at 65 (female/male): 22.3/18.9
Median Household Income (after taxes, US$): $78,291


Would that be using the money that evaded taxing in our countries?

I don't see the weather or the population density taken into account with these stastistics. To quote an old joke:

American tourist to Glasgow taxi driver 'Does it never stop raining in Scotland'?
Taxi driver 'I do not know sir, I am only fifty years old'

devilsadvocate
11-09-2010, 08:23 PM
I'm sorry, is Glen Beck telling you that the US has the best health care?

No, this:


A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very
interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations
International Health Organization.



OH NOES..................................j2k4 is posting chain emails



And he said he deletes them

clocker
11-10-2010, 12:45 AM
I'm sorry, is Glen Beck telling you that the US has the best health care?

No, this:


A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very
interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations
International Health Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after
diagnosis:

U.S. 65% England 46% Canada 42%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment
within six months:

U.S. 93% England 15% Canada 43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:

U.S. 90% England 15% Canada 43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:

U.S. 77% England 40% Canada 43%

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:

U.S. 71 England 14 Canada 18

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in
"excellent health":

U.S. 12% England 2% Canada 6%

Ah, the illustrious "Investor's Business Daily".
The same brilliant fact checking organization that claimed that Stephen Hawking would be dead if subjected to "socialist" health care like England's.
(Hint #1: Hawking was born and has lived in England for 67 years...
Hint #2: Every single statistic in this "article" is absolute, unmitigated bullshit)

Way to bolster your argument there, Kev.
A magazine with zero credibility using a "study" from an organization that doesn't exist.

At least Glen Beck- malignant as he may be- admits he's a clown and entertainer (albeit a really shitty version of either) unlike these morons.

Got more lies you'd like to disseminate?

bigboab
11-10-2010, 07:07 AM
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment
within six months:
U.S. 93% England 15% Canada 43%



If you are diagnosed with diabetes you must be receiving treatment\testing for something. Once diabetes is discovered;

(U.K.)If it is type 1 diabetes you get immediate medication. If you are diagnosed with severe type 2 then you are supplied with medication right away. If you have been diagnosed with the less severe type 2 diabetes you are told how to change your diet etc. to prevent it deterioating. I would count that as immediate treatment too.These are facts therefore, treatment afer diagnosis = 100%. I don't know how anyone can distort or dispute these figures.



p.s. You are not required to pay anyone.:whistling

clocker
11-10-2010, 03:28 PM
An interesting (and fairly damning) insight into US health care here. (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/12/-8220-god-help-you-you-39-re-on-dialysis-8221/8308/)

Naturally, it all comes down to money and given the right's aversion to regulation and "stifling" corporate greed, many more will die.

USA! USA! Fuck yeah!

999969999
11-10-2010, 04:43 PM
An interesting (and fairly damning) insight into US health care here. (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/12/-8220-god-help-you-you-39-re-on-dialysis-8221/8308/)

Naturally, it all comes down to money and given the right's aversion to regulation and "stifling" corporate greed, many more will die.

USA! USA! Fuck yeah!

Find a better country and move there, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

clocker
11-10-2010, 04:54 PM
And leave America in the hands of twits like you?

999969999
11-10-2010, 07:37 PM
And leave America in the hands of twits like you?

Your generation has sure left America in a mess for my generation.

clocker
11-10-2010, 07:58 PM
Give me time to find my tiny violin.

devilsadvocate
11-10-2010, 08:40 PM
Your generation has sure left America in a mess for my generation.
Really? What's wrong with it?

999969999
11-10-2010, 09:24 PM
Your generation has sure left America in a mess for my generation.
Really? What's wrong with it?

Well, I don't how old you are Lucifer, but Clocky's generation ran up a lot of debt that my generation is going to have to try to pay back.





Okay, now it's time for an announcement....

I'm going on a road trip with a few of my cousins to Six Flags Magic Mountain, Universal Studios, etc., and then up to Oregon to visit our grandparents over Thanksgiving. So, I won't be back on here until sometime in December.

Have fun!

devilsadvocate
11-10-2010, 10:31 PM
Really? What's wrong with it?

Well, I don't how old you are Lucifer, but Clocky's generation ran up a lot of debt that my generation is going to have to try to pay back.

Well if you don't like it you could always return to the fatherland.

Just a thought.


Okay, now it's time for an announcement....

I'm going on a road trip with a few of my cousins to Six Flags Magic Mountain, Universal Studios, etc., and then up to Oregon to visit our grandparents over Thanksgiving. So, I won't be back on here until sometime in December.
Can't imagine why you think we would be at all interested in your paid for on the sweat of your ancestors life, but while you're away us oldies will still be working and paying our own way.

megabyteme
11-10-2010, 10:57 PM
Okay, now it's time for an announcement....

I'm going on a road trip with a few of my cousins to Six Flags Magic Mountain, Universal Studios, etc., and then up to Oregon to visit our grandparents over Thanksgiving. So, I won't be back on here until sometime in December.

Have fun!

LOLLLLL. You've already taken this same "tour" just months ago. What an imagination you have!

clocker
11-13-2010, 12:11 PM
Really? What's wrong with it?

Well, I don't how old you are Lucifer, but Clocky's generation ran up a lot of debt that my generation is going to have to try to pay back.

What a stunning lack of self-awareness and history you display.
During "my generation's" reign, it's the very same Republicans that 9 champions who have run up the deficit and created the conditions that lead to the current financial morass.
In particular, the eight year Bush fiasco, which will almost certainly be remembered as the tipping point of America's decline into second world status.

9 is the poster boy for the Stockholm Syndrome.