Polls: White support for Obama at historic level [Archive]

Berserk

10-25-2008, 12:49 AM

This is certainly encouraging. I'm proud that we've reached the point where a Black man can get such a huge amount of support from White voters; more than Bill Clinton or John Kerry, or any other Democratic candidate since Jimmy Carter. It just goes to show, once again, how America is the greatest nation on Earth.

Polls: White support for Obama at historic level

http://images.politico.com/global/081024_obama_dpk.jpg

Barack Obama, the first black major party nominee, is positioned to win the largest share of white voters of any Democrat in more than three decades, according to an exclusive Politico analysis of recent Gallup and Pew Research Center polling.

The most recent two weeks of Gallup polling, which includes roughly 13,000 interviews, show 44 percent of non-Hispanic white voters presently support Obama — the highest number for a Democrat since 47 percent of whites backed Jimmy Carter in 1976.

Until the stock market swoon in mid-September, Obama had never reached 40 percent among white voters.

No Democrat has won a majority of white voters since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. John McCain has shuffled between 48 percent and 50 percent support in recent weeks — which would be the lowest share for a Republican candidate in a two-man race since Barry Goldwater's run.

If Obama's share holds, it would top the 43 percent of white voters who backed Bill Clinton in 1996, when the Democrat won a plurality among white females and 38 percent of white men, the best performance by a Democrat in all those categories since 1976.

Before the party conventions, Obama's support among white men had never passed 35 percent. In September, he matched Clinton's level of support, and last week he jumped five points to 43 percent.

“That is amazing,” Obama’s pollster Cornell Belcher said after those numbers were read to him.

“It was already a change election and now you have a cross pressure of the economy,” he said, causing whites “who have not been voting for white Democrats" to back Obama.

A Politico breakdown of the Pew polling shows dramatic improvement for Obama among whites since early September on the question of who would do a better job "improving the economy." White women, who last month were split, now believe Obama will do a better job “improving the economy” by a 49 to 35 percent margin. White men, who had favored McCain by 10 points, are now split with 41 percent preferring Obama and 43 percent McCain.

About half of whites say the economy is the most important issue in this campaign, while 8 percent said Iraq and 6 percent terrorism, according to the ABC News/Washington Post tracking poll covering Monday through Thursday.

In a similar poll in mid-October 2004, white voters were evenly split, with 26 percent citing the economy as the most important issue, while 25 percent said Iraq and 21 percent said terrorism.

A new Public Policy Polling report shows Obama's newfound leads in North Carolina, Virginia and Florida result from gains among white voters.

“Even as Obama continues to trail by a good amount with whites overall in these states, he’s winning with them on the issue foremost on voters’ minds this year,” the report concluded. “There’s not much doubt the economy is the main factor causing whites who voted Republican for president in 2004 to go Democratic this year. That is the single biggest factor driving his lead in the polls across the country right now.”

Only 7 percent of voters today are satisfied with the direction of the country, the lowest number in Gallup’s history. The reason, Gallup repeatedly notes, is the economy.

A new report by the Democratic firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research found that in 13 battleground states, rural voters — nine in 10 of whom are white — were split, with 46 percent backing Obama and 45 percent McCain. In September these voters favored McCain by 10 points .

The report found that Obama’s “improvement is driven by rising voter concerns over the economy in the aftermath of the collapse on Wall Street.”

A recent analysis by Gallup of some 40,000 interviews found that Obama's lead over McCain “has risen proportionately when the percentage of Americans who are negative about the U.S. economy increases.”

McCain maintains large advantages over Obama with white voters on issues ranging from instituting a “wise foreign policy” to “defending the nation” to “dealing with immigration.” But all of these issues, which have tended to draw whites toward the Republican party, have been eclipsed amongst voter concerns by the market dives.

Pew recently found that 35 percent of whites said they are “most concerned about the financial markets” specifically, compared with 17 percent of blacks.

Eight-six percent of white Democrats now support Obama, roughly equal to what John F. Kerry earned in 2004. Until the economic crisis began, that number had been in the 70s, on par with Michael Dukakis in 1988 and Clinton in 1992.

More than eight in 10 white working-class Democrats now back Obama, roughly a 20 percentage point rise compared to the week before the Democratic convention.

Obama also splits white independents with McCain, with 46 percent backing each candidate, a performance unseen by a Democrat since Clinton in 1996. In the past week, Obama’s support has slightly waned with independent white working-class men, the largest group of independents. But he has gained with women in the same bloc.

Until the market collapse, Obama was narrowly losing white Catholics. He's now opened up a 54 percent to 39 percent lead, according to Pew.

While Obama’s support among whites under age 30 has long been stronger than recent Democratic nominees, he's now within single digits among white voters age 50 to 64 as well as seniors, according to Pew.

It remains to be seen if Obama's polling numbers among whites translate into support within the privacy of the election booth. About one in five voters say they “personally” know someone who will “not vote for Obama because he is black.”

But the economy, in Belcher's view, has mitigated even the role of race. “We are seeing race being trumped by economic concerns and overall changes in the direction of the country in a fundamental way,” he said. “That is perhaps pushing aside, for the first time in our cultural history, race as a debilitating obstacle.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14921.html

Cam63

10-25-2008, 12:52 AM

I still prefer our beer.

Berserk

10-25-2008, 12:57 AM

I still prefer our beer.

What country do you live in?

Cam63

10-25-2008, 01:02 AM

Here's a clue... G'day, mate. 'Owyergoin' ? Oright ? Grouse !

Berserk

10-25-2008, 01:03 AM

Here's a clue... G'day, mate. 'Owyergoin' ? Oright ? Grouse !

Uhhh..Mexico?? Just kidding :smile: I don't care much for American beer. I've never had Australian beer though, so I can't compare. If we're judging countries based on their beer, then Germany would be the best.

Cam63

10-25-2008, 01:04 AM

I've had some nice Belgian stuff, but I'd have to get a second job to buy the stuff.

Calybos

10-25-2008, 12:11 PM

What makes it a "historic" level? I don't recall white support for Obama being much higher OR lower in previous presidential elections.

mattx110

10-25-2008, 12:12 PM

What makes it a "historic" level? I don't recall white support for Obama being much higher OR lower in previous presidential elections.
Highest percentage of white people voting dem in 30 years. Read the article.

Eliseu Gouveia

10-25-2008, 12:29 PM

Berserk

10-25-2008, 12:44 PM

Obama did say something during the convention that not many people picked.

That this election is not really about him.
Sure, he´s the first black candidate to reach this far but he only reached this far because voters - most of which are white voters- bet on him.

IMHO, this is as much about him as it is about the people - mostly white - who are rooting for him.

I commend you folks for this since it´ll be many-many years until we see such a thing happen here in old europe (or asia or south america).

Thanks. America is the most revolutionary and innovative country in the world. By picking Obama, we're improving the image of Black people around the world in whatever country they live in. Europeans and Asians will start to look at Blacks more highly, since they'll see that a Black man is the leader of the world's wealthiest and most powerful nation. I'm so proud to be an American!

Flying Saucers Over Oz

10-25-2008, 01:07 PM

Nothing against Obama, I've already cast my absentee ballot for him, but I suspect at this point the Democrats could've run a dead squirrel for President and at least tied.

I'm hoping Obama will do well. He's got a lot of fans and he seems more sensible than most of the other guys we've had recently. But I'm worried this'll be a replay of Jimmy Carter's term.

Berserk

10-25-2008, 01:19 PM

Buzz Dixon

10-25-2008, 02:05 PM

Obama's strategic genius is that he made the campaign about us while all the other candidates made it about them.

glue

10-25-2008, 06:28 PM

Obama's strategic genius is that he made the campaign about us while all the other candidates made it about them.

That and the Kool-Aid.

Major Comma

10-25-2008, 07:44 PM

Interesting , but its just another poll.
Election Day will tell us how stong Obamas support Reallly Is .
Just wary of pundits and polls.

Berserk

10-25-2008, 08:08 PM

Interesting , but its just another poll.
Election Day will tell us how stong Obamas support Reallly Is .
Just wary of pundits and polls.

Don't be so cynical. Just:

http://www.derailobama.com/images/Obama%20Hope.jpg

Major Comma

10-25-2008, 11:39 PM

OK,
I HOPE its over SOON on election night!

KPhoebe

10-25-2008, 11:46 PM

It just goes to show, once again, how America is the greatest nation on Earth.

Sweetheart, that's a lie, but I'm happy for y'all anyway!

Berserk

10-26-2008, 12:22 AM

Sweetheart, that's a lie, but I'm happy for y'all anyway!

Are you an American?

KPhoebe

10-26-2008, 05:09 AM

Are you an American?

Nope. Hence, "y'all".

Buzz Dixon

10-26-2008, 09:55 AM

Nope. Hence, "y'all".Let me channel the great drive-in movie and pop culture Joe Bob Briggs to explain:

"Y'all means 'you all'! You do NOT use it when talking to a single person; that's just 'you'. 'Y'all' is the plural of 'you' and refers to a definite group of people, not to an unknown quantity.

"I'm surprised I have to explain this to you."

4PointOh

10-26-2008, 12:05 PM

"It is much more effective, because it is, after all, comparitively easy to invest a population with a false morale by giving them a false sense of superiority, and it will always break down in a crisis."

James Baldwin

KPhoebe

10-26-2008, 04:45 PM

Let me channel the great drive-in movie and pop culture Joe Bob Briggs to explain:

"Y'all means 'you all'! You do NOT use it when talking to a single person; that's just 'you'. 'Y'all' is the plural of 'you' and refers to a definite group of people, not to an unknown quantity.

"I'm surprised I have to explain this to you."

Buzz, let me explain to *you* that I am happy for y'all in the great nation of America (which is not mine, hence "y'all" and not "us") because it looks like you plural are going to be getting a good president.

Do not school me on grammar. Grammar is the bitch of me.

Having cursed myself to a week of typos and grammar flubs, sir, I bid you good day!

Berserk

10-26-2008, 05:11 PM

Nope. Hence, "y'all".

So, what country do you think is the greatest?

KPhoebe

10-26-2008, 05:29 PM

So, what country do you think is the greatest?

New Zealand. Duh.

Tobias March

10-26-2008, 06:58 PM

Uhhh..Mexico?? Just kidding :smile: I don't care much for American beer. I've never had Australian beer though, so I can't compare. If we're judging countries based on their beer, then Germany would be the best.

Blasphemy! First off there are many fine Australian brews. I'm partial to Red Back myself, it's a nice wheat beer. But Germany doesn't cut the mustard as much as Belgium. Belgium Beer Monks FTW!

Excellent news on Obama btw :biggrin:

Berserk

10-26-2008, 07:00 PM

New Zealand. Duh.

Ok. At least if you're gonna try and claim a country is the greatest, come up with one that's actually done something major throughout history or has contributed something of value either culturally or technologically. Here's the following reasons why I think the United States is currently the greatest country in the world. There are of course many other reasons, but this short list is enough to prove my point:

1) The United States is the first constitutional republic in history. Not only were we the first, but we're the only nation that specifically prohibits the establishment of an official state religion in our constitution; separation of church and state, as well as freedom of speech, etc.

2) The United States saved Western Europe from the Nazis and then the Communists.

3) Americans invented airplanes as well as many other inventions, not to mention also we were the first and only nation to put men on the moon. Our space program is second to none.

4) Our culture dominates the rest of the world thanks to the widespread appeal of Hollywood movies and the American music industry.

5) We have the strongest military and the largest economy in the world.

6) The rest of the world loves our nation enough to want to immigrate here. We are the most welcoming country in the world for immigrants. Because of this, America is also the most diverse nation in the world.

7) Americans invented the internet, without which you wouldn't be able to log onto this forum and brag about New Zealand. http://forums.comicbookresources.com/images/smilies/original/biggrin.gif

Anyways, I think the seven above things are enough to make us currently the greatest nation on Earth.

Berserk

10-26-2008, 07:04 PM

Blasphemy! First off there are many fine Australian brews. I'm partial to Red Back myself, it's a nice wheat beer. But Germany doesn't cut the mustard as much as Belgium. Belgium Beer Monks FTW!

Well, I haven't tried beer from Australia or Belgium so I guess I technically can't say that the German beer is the best. :biggrin:

Excellent news on Obama btw :biggrin:

Thanks! I can't believe the election is only a week away. I'm so excited! Early voting has started in my state so I'm gonna vote the day after tomorrow.

section 8

10-26-2008, 07:07 PM

Sabrinaset

10-26-2008, 07:11 PM

New Zealand. Duh.

New Zealand doesn't even have anything APPROACHING Planet Karen!

RE-JECTED!!!

KPhoebe

10-26-2008, 07:18 PM

Berserk

10-26-2008, 07:29 PM

Oh, you are so cute. Of course you think America's the greatest nation in the world - you live there; you were presumably born there; you're predisposed to love it and feel loyalty to it, and the educational system of your country naturally emphasises its greatest deeds.

But "greatest" (as opposed to "most powerful", with which I would not quibble) is very much a subjective value, not the objective standard you're trying to apply. You cannot objectively claim the US for the greatest nation in the world, any more than I could for New Zealand. I'm amused and saddened that you attempt it; I hope it's a mark of your youth.

That said, I also laugh heartily at your slur that New Zealand has never produced anything of world-wide historical or cultural value. New Zealand is the world's first modern democracy; New Zealanders split the atom and conquered Everest. New Zealand is young and wee, but wiry.

I wasn't born in the United States. I'm actually an immigrant from a war torn country. Americans welcomed me and my family and made me a citizen of their great nation, and my family and I have prospered greatly as a result. So, I'm living proof of the greatness of America; the American dream. As to your second point about New Zealand being the world's first modern democracy, that is false. America was the first; we accomplished that feat in 1776, whereas New Zealand did it in 1854.

mattx110

10-26-2008, 07:32 PM

I wasn't born in the United States. I'm actually an immigrant from a war torn country. Americans welcomed me and my family and made me a citizen of their great nation, and my family and I have prospered greatly as a result. So, I'm living proof of the greatness of America; the American dream. As to your second point about New Zealand being the world's first modern democracy, that is false. America was the first; we accomplished that feat in 1776, whereas New Zealand did it in 1854.
That's not true. Suffrage is a major aspect of democracy, and you don't satisfy the definition when only white landed men can vote.

Eliseu Gouveia

10-26-2008, 07:32 PM

I wasn't born in the United States. I'm actually an immigrant from a war torn country. Americans welcomed me and my family and made me a citizen of their great nation, and my family and I have prospered greatly as a result. So, I'm living proof of the greatness of America; the American dream. As to your second point about New Zealand being the world's first modern democracy, that is false. America was the first; we accomplished that feat in 1776, whereas New Zealand did it in 1854.

You know, this is exactly the type of discourse that turns (non-american) people off.

Nobody likes to hear people gloating.

Berserk

10-26-2008, 07:35 PM

You know, this is exactly the type of discourse that turns (non-american) people off.

Nobody likes to hear people gloating.

Americans haven't had much to gloat over the past 8 years, but we're finally starting to feel good about our nation again thanks to Bush leaving office and Obama leading in the polls.

Berserk

10-26-2008, 07:37 PM

That's not true. Suffrage is a major aspect of democracy, and you don't satisfy the definition when only white landed men can vote.

By your definition, Ancient Greece wouldn't have been the world's first democracy since only land owning White men were allowed to vote or participate in government in Ancient Greece. And even though America lagged behind concerning the issue of female and minority suffrage, we'll soon be the first Western nation to elect a non-White person to the highest office.

KPhoebe

10-26-2008, 07:46 PM

By your definition, Ancient Greece wouldn't have been the world's first democracy since only land owning White men were allowed to vote or participate in government in Ancient Greece. And even though America lagged behind concerning the issue of female and minority suffrage, we'll soon be the first Western nation to elect a non-White person to the highest office.

Hence, New Zealand is the world's first *modern* democracy. In modern times, we wouldn't consider a system like that of Ancient Greece to be at all democratic.

Berserk

10-26-2008, 07:49 PM

Hence, New Zealand is the world's first *modern* democracy. Keep up.

That's bull. We were the first modern democracy. Just because we didn't give every citizen the right to vote right away didn't mean that we didn't have a democracy. It was just a limited democracy.

KPhoebe

10-26-2008, 07:56 PM

That's bull. We were the first modern democracy. Just because we didn't give every citizen the right to vote right away didn't mean that we didn't have a democracy. It was just a limited democracy.

Then New Zealand was the world's first *full* democracy. (And sugar, seriously, when more than half of your citizens can't vote, that's a pretty shitty "limited democracy").

It's an achievement of historical proportions any way you slice it.

Berserk

10-26-2008, 08:00 PM

Then New Zealand was the world's first *full* democracy. (And sugar, seriously, when more than half of your citizens can't vote, that's a pretty shitty "limited democracy").

It's an achievement of historical proportions any way you slice it.

Even if I concede your point, it still doesn't prove that New Zealand is the greatest nation. How can you compare New Zealand to America? It's not even close in my opinion. At least Britain, Germany, France, Japan, and China can make good cases for the world's greatest nation. New Zealand is, I'm sorry to say, not even in the top 10.

mattx110

10-26-2008, 08:04 PM

By your definition, Ancient Greece wouldn't have been the world's first democracy since only land owning White men were allowed to vote or participate in government in Ancient Greece. And even though America lagged behind concerning the issue of female and minority suffrage, we'll soon be the first Western nation to elect a non-White person to the highest office.
Not my definition. I rarely use my definitions. The political science definition. The one used by those who study Politics. And teach it. There's standards for what makes a democracy, and the US of 1776 doesn't pass the test.

"Limited democracy" is a contradiction.

KPhoebe

10-26-2008, 08:05 PM

Even if I concede your point, it still doesn't prove that New Zealand is the greatest nation. How can you compare New Zealand to America? It's not even close in my opinion. At least Britain, Germany, France, Japan, and China can make good cases for the world's greatest nation. New Zealand is, I'm sorry to say, not even in the top 10.

No, listen up. When I claimed New Zealand as the greatest nation I was *joking*, because I thought you were too. I find the idea of anyone claiming any nation as objectively "the greatest" to be utterly hilarious, and a little sad. Pointing out NZ's historical import was a reaction to your claiming it didn't have any, not a claim for "greatest" status.

I don't claim New Zealand to be the world's greatest nation. I love it the most, and that's another kettle of fish. I can surely accept you loving America more than any other country, but I find your championship of it as "the greatest" to be weird and illogical.

mattx110

10-26-2008, 08:05 PM

Gorthaur

10-26-2008, 08:08 PM

It's a moot point, anyway. As any sane person who isn't completely ignorant knows, the True Greatest Nation in the world is the Principality of Sealand (http://www.sealandgov.org/About.html).

KPhoebe

10-26-2008, 08:10 PM

It's a moot point, anyway. As any sane person who isn't completely ignorant knows, the True Greatest Nation in the world is the Principality of Sealand (http://www.sealandgov.org/About.html).

Tjat's not fair! No one could argue with that!

GODDAMN YOU, GORTHAUR. I HOPE YOU LOSE A TOE IN A FREAK ACCIDENT.

Buzz Dixon

10-26-2008, 08:13 PM

I'm guessing Y'all ain't never been to the south, have you Buzz?I was born and raised in the South, mostluy in Appalachia.

So I know whereof I speak.

"You" is used when addressing a single person. "Y'all" or "you all" is used when addressing a group.

Gorthaur

10-26-2008, 08:16 PM

Tjat's not fair! No one could argue with that!

GODDAMN YOU, GORTHAUR. I HOPE YOU LOSE A TOE IN A FREAK ACCIDENT.I will gladly sacrifice life and limb for the greater glory of Sealand!

Tommy

10-26-2008, 08:17 PM

"You" is used when addressing a single person. "Y'all" or "you all" is used when addressing a group.

And if you happen to be addressing multiple distinct groups you use "All 'a' y'all."

Berserk

10-26-2008, 08:17 PM

Give us a set of standards to prove it, and we'll work from there.

Ok here are some criteria to use to determine national greatness:

1 - Military strength
2 - Economic strength
3 - Level of freedom
4 - Technological achievements
5 - Cultural achievements
6 - Historical importance

I rank America as first in all the above categories for any nation in the past century except for perhaps the 3rd one. Our culture is the most dominant across the world, we have the strongest military, the strongest economy, the highest level of freedom, the most important inventions, and we are the most historically important in the past century since we prevented the Nazis and Soviet Union from taking over Europe and dominating the world as a result and now we are the world's only super power. Just think, if there were an alien invasion or a large comet about to hit the Earth, which nation would the rest of the world rely on to combat those threats? New Zealand couldn't stop either.

Buzz Dixon

10-26-2008, 08:18 PM

And if you happen to be addressing multiple distinct groups you use "All 'a' y'all."Yes, bot how often does that happen?

Tommy

10-26-2008, 08:21 PM

Yes, bot how often does that happen?

Normally when my local officials are addressing the public access news crew, our local newspaper, and the high school journalism class.

section 8

10-26-2008, 08:25 PM

I was born and raised in the South, mostluy in Appalachia.

So I know whereof I speak.

"You" is used when addressing a single person. "Y'all" or "you all" is used when addressing a group.

Well then you have no excuse.

Anyway good luck enforcing that, especially where i'm from.

beetlebum

10-26-2008, 08:41 PM

Interesting , but its just another poll.
Election Day will tell us how stong Obamas support Reallly Is .
Just wary of pundits and polls.

Yes, exactly.

I've been saying that for quite some time now.

section 8

10-26-2008, 08:42 PM

That the reason for the absence Beets? The overtly political thread invasion?

beetlebum

10-26-2008, 08:51 PM

No; more like political action (and school, not to mention my messy personal life...) have kept me away.

Though I will admit to getting tired of seeing a new thread on Sarah Palin every day.

Anyways, it's nice to be missed. :smile:

section 8

10-26-2008, 08:55 PM

You're very missed, Beets dont worry about that.

Good luck with everything, Especially since you interest do not conflict my own

beetlebum

10-26-2008, 08:58 PM

Thanks. :smile:

And I haven't told anyone this yet, but I actually go out of my way to make sure my interests don't conflict with yours. :tongue:

J/K

Eliseu Gouveia

10-26-2008, 09:03 PM

Ok here are some criteria to use to determine national greatness:

1 - Military strength
2 - Economic strength
3 - Level of freedom
4 - Technological achievements
5 - Cultural achievements
6 - Historical importance

I´d actualy rank other issues higher in that scale, namely its citizen´s well-being in terms of health, education, mobility, minority treatment, social equality, etc.

For instances, China is a military beast and an economy giant but what good does it do if I´m starving, stuck in a 50 cent/ week dead end job?

Sabrinaset

10-26-2008, 09:04 PM

Though I will admit to getting tired of seeing a new thread on Sarah Palin every day.

If any more Palin threads start appearing, I DO have a plan to take care of them! :evilsmile:

KPhoebe

10-26-2008, 09:11 PM

If any more Palin threads start appearing, I DO have a plan to take care of them! :evilsmile:

Does it involve that scalpel?

section 8

10-26-2008, 09:14 PM

She's been saying this for a while, the Palin threads are still going strong tho.

Call.

Berserk

10-26-2008, 09:14 PM

I´d actualy rank other issues higher in that scale, namely its citizen´s well-being in terms of health, education, mobility, minority treatment, social equality, etc.

For instances, China is a military beast and an economy giant but what good does it do if I´m starving, stuck in a 50 cent/ week dead end job?

True. I forgot to add that.

Lester C.

10-26-2008, 10:42 PM

Berserk

10-26-2008, 11:27 PM

Shouldn't Rome be the first?

Rome was a republic, but it didn't have a constitution. America is the first constitutional republic.

thehod

10-27-2008, 01:05 AM

Ok. At least if you're gonna try and claim a country is the greatest, come up with one that's actually done something major throughout history or has contributed something of value either culturally or technologically. Here's the following reasons why I think the United States is currently the greatest country in the world. There are of course many other reasons, but this short list is enough to prove my point

These sorts of conversations get my back up. I'm all for being patriotic, and loving the country you live in, but its not a damn competition. There is no such thing as "The greatest country" as countries have just as many bad points as there are good points.

Now I'm not going to pick holes here, but...

1) The United States is the first constitutional republic in history. Not only were we the first, but we're the only nation that specifically prohibits the establishment of an official state religion in our constitution; separation of church and state, as well as freedom of speech, etc.
You may have been the first, but the whole seperation of church and state thing hasn't been going too brilliantly recently has it?

2) The United States saved Western Europe from the Nazis and then the Communists.
One of the biggest falacies about the second world war was how the Americans "saved" Europe from the Nazis. The Nazi were already getting a kicking on the Eastern front by the time you got your act together and got in the fight. Not to mention Britian has stood up the the Nazi war machine by itself for over a year. You helped out. You didn't do the job single handed.

3) Americans invented airplanes as well as many other inventions, not to mention also we were the first and only nation to put men on the moon. Our space program is second to none.
There have been many great inventors from many great nations. John Logie Baird invented the television - Scottish. Michael Faraday invented the electric transformer - English. Alexander Fleming discovered Penicillin - Scottish. Johannes Gutenberg invented moveable type printing - German. The list goes on and on.
Oh, and the technology that allowed you to go to the moon in the first place came from a German. And the Russians actually got into space first.

4) Our culture dominates the rest of the world thanks to the widespread appeal of Hollywood movies and the American music industry.
There is also an arguement to say that your culture is slowly dumbing the world down due to exactly the same source. Leaving that aside for the moment, people like Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Beethoven, Mozart and a zillion others have all lent to the culture of the world, not just Hollywood.

5) We have the strongest military and the largest economy in the world.
A strong army can be a great thing, when its used for the right reasons. And remind me how the economy is doing at the moment.

6) The rest of the world loves our nation enough to want to immigrate here. We are the most welcoming country in the world for immigrants. Because of this, America is also the most diverse nation in the world.
In our history, Britian has been home to Italians, Scandinavians, French, Germans, Polish, Dutch, West Indians, Indians, Pakistainies, and has seen a massive recent inlflux of people from the Baltic States.
Your not alone in having a diverse population, most of the major countries have a great diversity of people.

7) Americans invented the internet, without which you wouldn't be able to log onto this forum and brag about New Zealand.
Americans may have invented the internet, but you'd be nowhere without the World Wide Web which was the invention of Tim Berners-Lee. A Brit.

I love America. I really do. I love its people. I love its culture. I especially like its comics.
I love Britain. I was born here, and its where I want to spend the rest of my life. But I'm not blind to its faults.

There is just no such thing as "The Greatest Country in the World." as every country in the world has at one point or another had something to offer the world, and has taken something away from the world.

section 8

10-27-2008, 01:15 AM

What is with the "My D**k is bigger than yours" direction this thread has taken all of a suddne?

section 8

10-27-2008, 02:03 AM

There is just no such thing as "The Greatest Country in the World." as every country in the world has at one point or another had something to offer the world, and has taken something away from the world.

True, Very true....
What about Good looking?

Charles RB

10-27-2008, 06:18 AM

Ok. At least if you're gonna try and claim a country is the greatest, come up with one that's actually done something major throughout history or has contributed something of value either culturally or technologically.

New Zealand was the earliest nation to have universal suffrage. That's pretty culturally important.

2) The United States saved Western Europe from the Nazis and then the Communists.

Incorrect - America was one of multiple nations on the Allied side; saying that ignores the highly important contributions of British Empire nations and the Soviet Union (number of boots on the ground being the most obvious one). I really would not want to see the outcome of WW2 if the USSR had fallen quickly and the Nazis didn't need to throw tons of men and resources into an Eastern front.

Also, America let the Communists take Eastern Europe and half of Germany. (Not that much could be done once they were there)

3) Americans invented airplanes as well as many other inventions

Other countries have invented other significant inventions.

, not to mention also we were the first and only nation to put men on the moon. Our space program is second to none.

You spent most of the space race being beaten by the Russians, and soon the Russians will be the only ones capable of getting into space (though only for a few years).

5) We have the strongest military and the largest economy in the world.

True at the moment, but the EU's catching up re economy.

6) The rest of the world loves our nation enough to want to immigrate here.

Except people emigrate to many other countries. There are literally millions of them here. (Also in New Zealand, cos it's apparently quite nice to live in)

Hell, Americans emigrate to other countries.

7) Americans invented the internet

Actually, it was a Briton who invented the world wide web, while working at a Swedish facility.

Ok here are some criteria to use to determine national greatness

Why don't you have standard of living on there? That's pretty important in terms of a nation being a great place to live, surely?

Course, in international rankings (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/oct/22/equality-wealth-uk-social-mobility) of living standards, child poverty and social mobility, the US is in the Top 30 but never the Top 10. (The UK isn't either, so I can't really gloat) The Scandinavian countries and Sweden tend to win these things a lot.

New Zealand beats you on the child poverty ranking and income equality. (The UK beats both in the former but loses to NZ in the latter. We're beaten by a lot of people in the latter, it's embarrassing...)

Charles RB

10-27-2008, 06:24 AM

Your not alone in having a diverse population, most of the major countries have a great diversity of people.

In fact, New Zealand's more diverse than the States, having almost 31% non-white population IIRC and that's ignoring the differing ethnic/national backgrounds in the remaining 69%.

Also in its favour, Air New Zealand has ads citing how they have flights to Hong Kong because "we're going that way anyway", which is just brilliant and gives me mental images of the pilots randomly changing their flight plans to suit hitch-hikers they've just picked up.

Tommy

10-27-2008, 09:56 AM

we'll soon be the first Western nation to elect a non-White person to the highest office.

I'm kind of curious how you are defining "Western Nation" and "non-white." By "Western Nation" I'm assuming we are leaving out all of Central and South America where plenty of "non-white" people have attained the highest office. And New Zeeland, which had had a Maori Prime Minister. And all of Africa, even thought places like South Africa are pretty damn Western.

Of course if you are going to restrict the sample size to just Western Europe the United States and Canada, then obviously the US should be the first to elect a "non-white" to the highest office since we have the highest percentage of our population. Just to give you a heads up, we have six times as many people of African descent as Canada, and four times as many as Brittan.

You may have been the first, but the whole seperation of church and state thing hasn't been going too brilliantly recently has it?

Freedom of speech isn't exactly working out well either.

Gail Simone

10-27-2008, 10:07 AM

New Zealand should be considered one of the greatest nations on Earth for the seafood alone.

thehod

10-27-2008, 10:09 AM

New Zealand should be considered one of the greatest nations on Earth for the seafood alone.

The scenery isn't bad either

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/08/f2/0b/new-zealand.jpg

Charles RB

10-27-2008, 10:36 AM

And New Zeeland, which had had a Maori Prime Minister.

New Zealand should be considered one of the greatest nations on Earth for the seafood alone.

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/08/f2/0b/new-zealand.jpg

Anyone else reading this thread and getting the urge to move to New Zealand?

Eliseu Gouveia

10-27-2008, 11:05 AM

Anyone else reading this thread and getting the urge to move to New Zealand?

I am. :biggrin:

.
.
.
.

AllisterH

10-27-2008, 11:48 AM

Actually, I think it's kind of pathetic that a country like the US STILL hasn't elected a female president.

There are actually have been more females living in America at any one time and the closest a female has come to the presidency was actually under the republicans until recently.

1. President - George W. Bush
2. Vice President- Dick Cheney
3. Speaker of the House of Rep. - Nancy Pelosi
4. President Pro Temp of the Senate - Robert Byrd
5. Sec. of State - Condi Rice
6. Sec. of Treasury - Henry Paulson
7. Secretary of Defense - Robert Gates
8. Attorney General - Michael Mukasey
9. Secretary of Interior - Dirk kempthorne

Kind of funny that Condi Rice actually was the highest a female had ever gotten until Pelosi.

Not sure Americans want to brag about being eglitarian because that sure as hell doesn't look egalitarian to me.

re: Most influential country
Er, while the Brits have lost their empire, I thought it was understood that the Brits have had the greatest influence on the world, not just from their time when the Sun never went down on the Empire, but also the fact that they begat the US.

Charles RB

10-27-2008, 12:11 PM

Actually, I think it's kind of pathetic that a country like the US STILL hasn't elected a female president.

Which (and not counting acting/interim leaders or no-longer existent nations) is something that's been done by Britain, Germany, Israel, Brazil, India, Sri Lanka, Portugal, Dominica, Norway, Phillipines, Pakistan, Lithuania, Poland, Nicaragua, Turkey, Rwanda, Canada, Burundi, Haiti, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Liberia, Guyana, Indonesia, Senegal, Peru, Finland, São Tomé and Príncipe, Mozambique, Chile, Jamaica, Argentina, Ukraine, Moldova....

...and New Zealand!

(Not that they've all been good leaders, of course, but that's always a risk)

And the current Cabinet of the United Kingdom includes Jacqui Smith, Harriet Harman, Hazel Blears, Yvette Cooper, and Baroness Royall of Blaisdon; with Margaret Beckett, the Baroness Scotland of Asthal, Tessa Jowell, Caroline Flint, and Beverley Hughes as Ministers as non-Cabinet Ministers who can still attemd/

(Several of them suck, especially Jacqui Smith, but... well, it's Gordon Brown's Cabinet, innit.)

Berserk

10-27-2008, 12:37 PM

These sorts of conversations get my back up. I'm all for being patriotic, and loving the country you live in, but its not a damn competition. There is no such thing as "The greatest country" as countries have just as many bad points as there are good points.

Now I'm not going to pick holes here, but...

You may have been the first, but the whole seperation of church and state thing hasn't been going too brilliantly recently has it?

What do you mean by that?

One of the biggest falacies about the second world war was how the Americans "saved" Europe from the Nazis. The Nazi were already getting a kicking on the Eastern front by the time you got your act together and got in the fight. Not to mention Britian has stood up the the Nazi war machine by itself for over a year. You helped out. You didn't do the job single handed.

I'm not saying we did the job single handed. But, by the time we got involved, Britain was on the brink of collapse. You didn't have much fight left in you. Also, without America, Britain and Western Europe couldn't have done anything to stop the Soviet advance. Because America got involved, the Soviets were prevented from advancing further than East Berlin. So, Britain would have been taken over by the Soviets and all of Europe made communist were it not for America. Also, after the war was over, America helped rebuild Britain and the other countries of Western Europe through the Marshall Plan.

There have been many great inventors from many great nations. John Logie Baird invented the television - Scottish. Michael Faraday invented the electric transformer - English. Alexander Fleming discovered Penicillin - Scottish. Johannes Gutenberg invented moveable type printing - German. The list goes on and on.
Oh, and the technology that allowed you to go to the moon in the first place came from a German. And the Russians actually got into space first.

The Russians got into space first, but we were the first and only nation to plant our flag on the moon. We were also the only nation to explore Mars and the rest of the solar system:

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3/Nutzkie2001/MoonFlagSalute.jpg

There is also an arguement to say that your culture is slowly dumbing the world down due to exactly the same source. Leaving that aside for the moment, people like Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Beethoven, Mozart and a zillion others have all lent to the culture of the world, not just Hollywood.

I was talking in terms of the last century. Keep in mind that America has only existed for a little over 200 years, so if we're talking throughout all of history then it's difficult to compete of course. But, in the last century we've certainly contributed the most culturally to the world.

A strong army can be a great thing, when its used for the right reasons. And remind me how the economy is doing at the moment..

It's not just our economy that is being hurt by the current global financial crisis. Europeans and Asians are feeling the effects as well. And, because of our vast resources, we could afford to buy out our banks unlike small nations such as Iceland which can't and therefore will see their economies collapse.

In our history, Britian has been home to Italians, Scandinavians, French, Germans, Polish, Dutch, West Indians, Indians, Pakistainies, and has seen a massive recent inlflux of people from the Baltic States.
Your not alone in having a diverse population, most of the major countries have a great diversity of people.

Yes, but America has the most diverse population. Not only can people from every country in the world be found in America, but we also have 35% non-Whites citizens(which is the most of any Western nation), whereas Britain only has 14.3% non-Whites.

Americans may have invented the internet, but you'd be nowhere without the World Wide Web which was the invention of Tim Berners-Lee. A Brit.

I love America. I really do. I love its people. I love its culture. I especially like its comics.
I love Britain. I was born here, and its where I want to spend the rest of my life. But I'm not blind to its faults.

There is just no such thing as "The Greatest Country in the World." as every country in the world has at one point or another had something to offer the world, and has taken something away from the world.

I wasn't talking in terms of the greatest country in history. I meant the greatest country in the past century. It's hard to argue that America hasn't been the greatest country in the past century, since it's had the most influence in terms of culture and technology and is the most powerful and wealthy.

Lester C.

10-27-2008, 12:43 PM

Psychologist have measured whether or not people lie about being racist. How they work it is they bring study group in under false pretenses and collect their information. Then they send a large black man, or someone like that, to their place of business and see whether or not they discriminate. Fifty percent of the time they do. Afterward they debrief the study group half of which are pissed off but they sign various disclaimers and whatnot. It turns out the peope lie when polled about questions of race because they want to give the socially desirable answer not how they really feel.

section 8

10-27-2008, 12:43 PM

all the nations to some degree, suck

The key is to work together and try, just TRY to keep the suckage toa minimum.

Berserk

10-27-2008, 12:45 PM

Actually, it was a Briton who invented the world wide web, while working at a Swedish facility.

I was talking about the internet. It was invented through an American military program. That's how many of our inventions came about, like for instance cell phones and GPS; the American military developed them first to use in combat and then later on they became available to the general public.

Why don't you have standard of living on there? That's pretty important in terms of a nation being a great place to live, surely?

Course, in international rankings (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/oct/22/equality-wealth-uk-social-mobility) of living standards, child poverty and social mobility, the US is in the Top 30 but never the Top 10. (The UK isn't either, so I can't really gloat) The Scandinavian countries and Sweden tend to win these things a lot.

New Zealand beats you on the child poverty ranking and income equality. (The UK beats both in the former but loses to NZ in the latter. We're beaten by a lot of people in the latter, it's embarrassing...)

The reason why America has a worse standard of living than many European countries is because we have a capitalist system here. The Scandinavians are socialists, which is why there is a smaller disparency in wealth between people and a better standard of living. I'd rather live in America because I don't want to have like 80% or more of my income taken away from me. Part of the American dream is being able to move up from poor or middle class to become wealthy. Anyone can become a millionaire or a billionaire in America whereas that's harder to do in Europe, since socialism not only limits economic growth, but it also makes people lazy and not want to work hard since they know the government will take care of them.

Agent Helix

10-27-2008, 12:47 PM

This is stupid.

Here's the main reason against the US being the "greatest country on earth".

http://thegrumpiest.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/chocolate-chip-sausage.jpg

section 8

10-27-2008, 12:49 PM

Berserk

10-27-2008, 12:49 PM

Berserk

10-27-2008, 12:52 PM

I'm kind of curious how you are defining "Western Nation" and "non-white." By "Western Nation" I'm assuming we are leaving out all of Central and South America where plenty of "non-white" people have attained the highest office. And New Zeeland, which had had a Maori Prime Minister. And all of Africa, even thought places like South Africa are pretty damn Western.

Of course if you are going to restrict the sample size to just Western Europe the United States and Canada, then obviously the US should be the first to elect a "non-white" to the highest office since we have the highest percentage of our population. Just to give you a heads up, we have six times as many people of African descent as Canada, and four times as many as Brittan.

Freedom of speech isn't exactly working out well either.

By Western nations I mean the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia. You're right that South Africa elected a Black president sooner but that wasn't a huge accomplishment considering that the vast majority of the people living in South Africa are Black. I was talking more in terms of a White majority nation electing a person from a minority ethnic group.

Berserk

10-27-2008, 12:53 PM

The scenery isn't bad either

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/08/f2/0b/new-zealand.jpg

Isn't New Zealand where they shot the Lord of the Rings movies? For that alone it should get several points.

section 8

10-27-2008, 01:04 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXTN3h-b9nU

Berserk

10-27-2008, 01:07 PM

This is better: :biggrin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI

Charles RB

10-27-2008, 01:13 PM

What do you mean by that?

He's refering to things like the religious right and their ilk. There's quite a lot of them from America, or so it appears.

I'm not saying we did the job single handed. But, by the time we got involved, Britain was on the brink of collapse.

America entered six months after Germany invaded the USSR, at which point - while Britain was still shaky - we were better off than we had been in the preceding two years. Suddenly Germany was focusing on two fronts instead of just us. At the same time, changing Luftwaffe tactics - bombings cities over RAF bases - gave a military advantage at the same time, and we'd cracked German naval codes which gave us the advantage in the Atlantic.

The breaking of German codes, it should be noted, was a major part in Allied victory and was achieved thanks to Poland.

Also, without America, Britain and Western Europe couldn't have done anything to stop the Soviet advance. Because America got involved, the Soviets were prevented from advancing further than East Berlin.

True but, again, America wasn't doing anything about the Soviet advance until it was at Germany. Churchill constantly went on at Roosevelt over this. It was a cock-up, that.

Also, after the war was over, America helped rebuild Britain and the other countries of Western Europe through the Marshall Plan.

True, but let's remember America was in the shape to do that because it hadn't been bombed to fuck like Western Europe had been (as the Axis couldn't reach the US outside of Pearl Harbour). That's geography behind that, not inherent American greatness (and it was for strategic aims rather than altruism).

The Russians got into space first, but we were the first and only nation to plant our flag on the moon.

Thanks to German scientists.

We were also the only nation to explore Mars and the rest of the solar system

Incorrect. The Soviet Union, Japan, and the European Space Agency have all been involved in the exploration of Mars and the solar system. The Soviets were the ones who started it and the only ones doing Mars exploration for four years.

The Soviets also reached Venus first, and the European Space Agency are currently orbiting it.

It should also be noted that the international space agencies collaborate these days:
* The NASA Phoenix lander was made in partnership with the Canadian Space Agency, the Finnish Meteorological Institute, and various European universities.
* The European Space Agency (ESA) and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency are collaborating on Mercury probes.
* Russia has trained and sent up cosmonauts for South Korea
* The ISS

We're also looking at Russia being the only people who can do regular spaceflight for at least a few years soon. That's worrying, really.

It's not just our economy that is being hurt by the current global financial crisis. Europeans and Asians are feeling the effects as well. And, because of our vast resources, we could afford to buy out our banks unlike small nations such as Iceland which can't and therefore will see their economies collapse.

...eh? Iceland has nationalised multiple banks. So have other nations.

It should also be noted that, at the moment, America's not doing much to lead the world in the economic crisis, simply due to how the US election system works (you're stuck with a dead-duck Prez until January).

This is unfortunate, as Gordon Brown is now taking an international role re economic response. That is worrying. He's shit.

Yes, but America has the most diverse population

Not true - New Zealand, also South Africa IIRC.

Britain only has 14.3% non-Whites.

The problem there is that you're counting caucasian English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish and/or Northern Irish as being the same block of whiteys. Not really accurate.

Also we have a sizeable minority of white East Europeans - different ethnic group.

Charles RB

10-27-2008, 01:21 PM

I was talking about the internet. It was invented through an American military program.

True, but what are we currently using now? What is this forum on? It's... the world wide web!

You really can't deny the significance of the web when to modern, civilian Internet usage.

The reason why America has a worse standard of living than many European countries is because we have a capitalist system here.

Incorrect - the entirety of the European Union are capitalist economies.

(So's New Zealand.)

Part of the American dream is being able to move up from poor or middle class to become wealthy.

International rankings, however, put America under several European nations when it comes to social mobility.

[quopte]that's harder to do in Europe, since socialism not only limits economic growth, but it also makes people lazy and not want to work hard [/QUOTE]

Inaccurate - Western European nations are in the top ten wealthiest and most income-generating countries on Earth, and the EU collectively brings in more GDP (nominal) than the US according to IMF and CIA listings from 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)).

That's because there never was a female politician who was good enough or popular enough to become president

Do you really want to claim there were no female politicians in the US that were better than, say, George Bush?

Berserk

10-27-2008, 01:41 PM

He's refering to things like the religious right and their ilk. There's quite a lot of them from America, or so it appears.

But the religious right, no matter how much they try, can never establish an official state religion or prevent people from believing in whatever religion they want to or being atheists as well. All the religious right can do is complain about abortions, gay marriage, and evolution; and they haven't managed to do anything about those three things(although they're trying to overturn the legalization of gay marriage in California with prop 8).

...eh? Iceland has nationalised multiple banks. So have other nations.

They can't afford to pay off the debt of those banks though which is why they are having a conflict with Britain over this and also their credit will soon dry up without paying off the debt since their banks will stop lending to their people and businesses.

It should also be noted that, at the moment, America's not doing much to lead the world in the economic crisis, simply due to how the US election system works (you're stuck with a dead-duck Prez until January).

This is unfortunate, as Gordon Brown is now taking an international role re economic response. That is worrying. He's shit.

I like Gordon Brown. And, I think he's doing a great job leading the world on this economic crisis. II don't know why the British people hate him so much. Normally, America would be taking the leadership role, especially since this mess started in America, but our president is too stupid to do anything, and the other leaders know it which is why they don't respect him.

Not true - New Zealand, also South Africa IIRC.

America has a higher percentage of minorities than New Zealand. South Africa is the only Western nation that has a majority non-White population, if we're excluding South America. The U.S. is second only to South Africa in terms of percentage of non-Whites in the population.

The problem there is that you're counting caucasian English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish and/or Northern Irish as being the same block of whiteys. Not really accurate.

Also we have a sizeable minority of white East Europeans - different ethnic group.

I was talking in terms of race, not ethnicity. English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, and Eastern Europeans are all White. If such people from Europe immigrated to America now, they wouldn't have any difficulty being part of the dominant class; especially those from the UK since they speak English. In America, all White ethnic groups are part of the dominant class, since they're all mixed up to begin with. There's Whites, and then everybody else.

Berserk

10-27-2008, 01:48 PM

Incorrect - the entirety of the European Union are capitalist economies.

(So's New Zealand.)

No they aren't. They're socialist for the most part. America has a free market(well we did until this recent government bailout), which is what makes it capitalist, as well as the low tax rates.

International rankings, however, put America under several European nations when it comes to social mobility.

Inaccurate - Western European nations are in the top ten wealthiest and most income-generating countries on Earth, and the EU collectively brings in more GDP (nominal) than the US according to IMF and CIA listings from 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)).

You're comparing the American GDP to all of the EU nations? That's not fair. We're talking in terms of individual nations, not whole continents.

Do you really want to claim there were no female politicians in the US that were better than, say, George Bush?

Well, at the time that Bush was first running in 2000, Hillary Clinton had no political experience other than being a first lady. And there weren't any other women who had both experience and the likeability factor. Getting elected president doesn't just take experience; you also have to be able to win debates and make speeches and win the support of enough people to be nominated. That's why we have a long primary process, in order to allow all the candidates to fight amongst each other for the nomination; and the people will select which one is best.

Gorthaur

10-27-2008, 02:04 PM

No they aren't. They're socialist for the most part. America has a free market(well we did until this recent government bailout), which is what makes it capitalist, as well as the low tax rates. No, you don't, and didn't. Every country in the world falls somewhere on a continuum between a command economy and a free market economy, but none of them - the US included - are at either extreme, and even the likes of Sweden still fall on the capitalist side.

Berserk

10-27-2008, 02:14 PM

No, you don't, and didn't. Every country in the world falls somewhere on a continuum between a command economy and a free market economy, but none of them - the US included - are at either extreme, and even the likes of Sweden still fall on the capitalist side.

Any country that nationalizes banks or corporations is at least partly socialist. Not to mention also socialism entails massive government programs such as universal healthcare, free college education, etc. America doesn't have those things whereas Sweden and many other European countries do, including Britain.

thehod

10-27-2008, 02:24 PM

Not to mention also socialism entails massive government programs such as universal healthcare, free college education, etc.

And those are bad things because.....?

beetlebum

10-27-2008, 03:07 PM

Actually, I think it's kind of pathetic that a country like the US STILL hasn't elected a female president.

And how the hell is it pathetic?

Maybe, just maybe, we haven't found the right female candidate yet (though I wish someone like Kay Bailey Hutchinson had run for office in 2000, as opposed to Bush). Unless you actually wanted Hillary to win the primaries *shudders*

Your first female prime minister was appointed to her position, not elected by popular vote.

Currently, 477 members of Congress are male and 88 are female. The global average for female representation at the parliamentary level in 2007 was 17.0%. Two senators just happen to be from my own state, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein.

In Canada, 65 of the 308 seats are held by women.

Look at the plank in your own eye.

For the record, I do have to admire a country like Rwanda where women hold over half of the parliament's seats.

I also wish the United States would be lucky enough to find a female candidate along the lines of Ellen Sirleaf Johnson, or Christina Kirchner, the latter of which coined one of my favourite phrases ever (Jazz Effect!). But until then, I'm just happy that a black man may be our next president.

As for the whole "my country vs your country" thing, the whole entire thing is subjective - there is no objective criteria to determine just who is the greatest country - though I do share some of Beserk's sentiments.

MacQuarrie

10-27-2008, 04:07 PM

Any country that nationalizes banks or corporations is at least partly socialist. Not to mention also socialism entails massive government programs such as universal healthcare, free college education, etc. America doesn't have those things whereas Sweden and many other European countries do, including Britain.

Oh, but we do. We just call them by other names. We socialize healthcare through employers, schools, and a variety of public and private agencies so that we can pretend we aren't doing it. We socialize education through a variety of scholarships, grants, and foundations, again so we can call it by a different name. But functionally, it's pretty much the same.

Oh, and please do me a favor and never again use the word "free" in reference to any government or social program. Nobody on earth has "free" education or healthcare, and nobody ever will. Somebody is paying for it. Just because the person who benefits isn't paying the bill doesn't mean it's free, but people looking for "free" services is what causes governments to collapse.

TANSTAAFL!

Paul McEnery

10-27-2008, 04:17 PM

beetlebum

10-27-2008, 04:56 PM

Oh, but we do. We just call them by other names. We socialize healthcare through employers, schools, and a variety of public and private agencies so that we can pretend we aren't doing it. We socialize education through a variety of scholarships, grants, and foundations, again so we can call it by a different name. But functionally, it's pretty much the same.

Oh, and please do me a favor and never again use the word "free" in reference to any government or social program. Nobody on earth has "free" education or healthcare, and nobody ever will. Somebody is paying for it. Just because the person who benefits isn't paying the bill doesn't mean it's free, but people looking for "free" services is what causes governments to collapse.

TANSTAAFL!

Exactly, MaQ!

As George F. Will pointed out on last Sunday's This Week, sugar subsidies (and other forms of subsidies) are a form of socialism.

But people, for some odd reason, certain people in this country react inflexibly, in a negative way, to phrases like "socialism" and "wealth distribution", while simultaneously partaking of its benefits.

"Wealth distribution" is one of the stupidest phrases ever; every form of taxes is a form of "wealth distribution"; only an ignorant person would fail to realise that; but the phrase is bandied around to justify certain policies that may be more harmful, then beneficial

$55 billion spent on farm subsidies a year. (http://www.politicalbase.com/issues/agricultural-subsidies/23/)

And those subsidies are having devastating effects in third world countries, who can't even begin to compete - nor even penetrate - our markets, due to the fact that they are at an extreme disadvantage.

Charles RB

10-27-2008, 07:45 PM

All the religious right can do is complain about abortions, gay marriage, and evolution; and they haven't managed to do anything about those three things

They've got intelligent design into multiple schools, which is doing something about evolution. And they're doing their part to try and prevent gay marriage and civil unions wherever they pop up.

I like Gordon Brown. And, I think he's doing a great job leading the world on this economic crisis. II don't know why the British people hate him so much.

He was Chancellor of the Exchequer for the ten years prior to becoming Prime Minister. The economy is doing crap, and there were warnings of this for years because of his policies. He fucked up, badly.

He's also behind such wonderful things as trying to push through the legal powers to detain people without charge for 42 days, which only got struck down because of the House of Lords.

He's not a good leader.

America has a higher percentage of minorities than New Zealand.

America has 20% non-caucasian citizens. New Zealand has 22% non-caucasian citizens.

This doesn't count the ethnic diversity among the caucasian population, of course, but there's quite a few New Zealanders who aren't of British/Irish origin. It's quite an ethnically diverse nation.

South Africa is the only Western nation that has a majority non-White population

And just over 20% of the population aren't black, and black South Africans are ethnically, culturally and linguisitically diverse. The nation is pretty damn diverse.

I was talking in terms of race, not ethnicity.

You previously just said "diverse". Ethnicity is part of diversity.

In America, all White ethnic groups are part of the dominant class, since they're all mixed up to begin with. There's Whites, and then everybody else.

Which is not true in the UK, because it's a grouping of four nations; and it's not true in Europe, because Europe's a continent full of countries with different cultures, languages and ethnicities; and, historically, it hasn't been true in America as the "wrong sort" of white immigrant got looked down on.

No they aren't. They're socialist for the most part. America has a free market(well we did until this recent government bailout), which is what makes it capitalist, as well as the low tax rates.

...I'm sorry, but you're trying to claim multiple nations with free market economies aren't really capitalist, because they have different governments to you. You're extremely wrong here, as can be noted by any given high street in Europe where private companies compete to offer their wares and people choose where to spend money for goods.

You're comparing the American GDP to all of the EU nations? That's not fair.

Granted, but the EU is a common market and thus tends to get lumped together as a single entity by the people who do international rankings.

Well, at the time that Bush was first running in 2000, Hillary Clinton had no political experience other than being a first lady. And there weren't any other women who had both experience and the likeability factor.

How exactly do you know this for a fact?

And this implies Bush and Gore were the absolute best people for the job from both parties. That's clearly not the case for Bush.

mattx110

10-27-2008, 07:55 PM

Any country that nationalizes banks or corporations is at least partly socialist. Not to mention also socialism entails massive government programs such as universal healthcare, free college education, etc. America doesn't have those things whereas Sweden and many other European countries do, including Britain.
I'm not trying to be condescending or rude, but go to your local university and see if you can sit in on a polisci class. There's things you're saying that either aren't true, or are sort of "loose definition" ways of understanding things, rather than the accepted definitions, and it's going to be impossible for you to communicate your side of things if you don't have the tools. Things like "democracy" and "fair participation" are not ideals, but useful terms used to understand governments.

AllisterH

10-27-2008, 08:20 PM

And how the hell is it pathetic?

Maybe, just maybe, we haven't found the right female candidate yet (though I wish someone like Kay Bailey Hutchinson had run for office in 2000, as opposed to Bush). Unless you actually wanted Hillary to win the primaries *shudders*
.

Um, I actually like Hillary so no, I don't think it wouldve been bad if she won.

Furthermore, it STILL is pathetic and it does apply to my own country as well. There's something just plain wrong that in country where more than HALF of the population are female, we couldn't find one that is good enough to lead the country.

Hell, black make up 15% of the American population and yet a black politican is going to elected president before a woman. You honestly don't think that's kind of sad?

Major Comma

10-27-2008, 09:18 PM

I was watching Iron Jawed Angels on HBO the other day.
It told the story of Alice Paul And Lucy Burns ,
and their efforts to ensure women the right to vote .
Now women can easily turn the course of an election.
there will be a female president.
Its just a matter of time.

Monty_Cristo

10-27-2008, 09:22 PM

Major Comma

10-27-2008, 09:33 PM

I think the fact that a african american could very well be the next President ,
Almost GUARANTEES that a woman will one day be President.

AllisterH

10-27-2008, 09:50 PM

i didn't realize that it's a race. a qualified black politician being electable isn't a knock against women.

No, it isnt.

But I always asumed it would be a woman first. Like I keep harping on, 50+% of the population i female. There should easily have been a female preident by then.

As for the future, Snowe, Clinton, Hutchinson look like they would be too old in 2016 (it's hard to deny that McCain' age has had a detrimental effect on how people view him) and I doubt Palin has a shot in 2012.

Berserk

10-27-2008, 11:55 PM

I'm not trying to be condescending or rude, but go to your local university and see if you can sit in on a polisci class. There's things you're saying that either aren't true, or are sort of "loose definition" ways of understanding things, rather than the accepted definitions, and it's going to be impossible for you to communicate your side of things if you don't have the tools. Things like "democracy" and "fair participation" are not ideals, but useful terms used to understand governments.

Sitting in on a class is not the same as actually attending a college. You can sit in on all the classes you want for free but you won't get a degree for it.

glue

10-27-2008, 11:58 PM

Sitting in on a class is not the same as actually attending a college. You can sit in on all the classes you want for free but you won't get a degree for it.

The information, not the degree, is the tool.

Berserk

10-28-2008, 12:05 AM

The information, not the degree, is the tool.

While the information is important, a degree is necessary in order to be hired to the job that you desire. You can't get a job as a doctor without a medical degree, even if you know everything there is to know about medicine; hospitals will want to have proof that you graduated from college and medical school.

glue

10-28-2008, 12:13 AM

While the information is important, a degree is necessary in order to be hired to the job that you desire. You can't get a job as a doctor without a medical degree, even if you know everything there is to know about medicine; hospitals will want to have proof that you graduated from college and medical school.

That is true, but not the point. mattx110 was suggesting ways to gain an understanding of the subject you're discussing. A career had nothing to do with it.

Berserk

10-28-2008, 12:17 AM

That is true, but not the point. mattx110 was suggesting ways to gain an understanding of the subject you're discussing. A career had nothing to do with it.

His response to me had to do with my comment about Europeans being socialist since a college education is free there. But, instead of focusing on the point which is that Europeans can get actual degrees for free, he tried to make it about sitting in classes in America for free, even though he knows that's not the same thing since you can't get a degree that way, whereas in Europe you can get a degree for free.

glue

10-28-2008, 12:20 AM

Berserk

10-28-2008, 12:24 AM

That was not at all what he was saying.

I went back and read the comment again. I see what you mean now. Concerning what he's said, I have taken a political science class; although it was back in high school.

Charles RB

10-28-2008, 06:21 AM

There's something just plain wrong that in country where more than HALF of the population are female, we couldn't find one that is good enough to lead the country.

I bet you could if you looked. Also Vice-Prez, because Palin's not the only female Republican and certainly not the most competent of them.

It's just they don't appeal to the nutjobs.

Charles RB

10-28-2008, 06:23 AM

since a college education is free there.

There might be some confusion here.

While I can't speak for all of Europe, in the UK a College is where students aged 16 to 18 go to earn A-Levels - it's the age equivalent of American high schools, but the educational focus is different. It's a different thing to what you call College. These are free to go to.

You earn a degree at University, and you do pay for that; this is true across Europe (there may be some countries where it isn't but they'd be the minority). The cost of University education has actually gone up over here, and a lot of students end up with debts just like in the States.

the4thpip

10-28-2008, 06:29 AM

There might be some confusion here.

While I can't speak for all of Europe, in the UK a College is where students aged 16 to 18 go to earn A-Levels - it's the age equivalent of American high schools, but the educational focus is different. It's a different thing to what you call College. These are free to go to.

You earn a degree at University, and you do pay for that; this is true across Europe (there may be some countries where it isn't but they'd be the minority). The cost of University education has actually gone up over here, and a lot of students end up with debts just like in the States.

University eduction was free all over Germany when I studied, but some of the states are now raising tuition fees. Still lots of parts of the federation where you can study for free, though. And the new Social Democrat/Green majority in Hessen just abolished the fees after only 2 or 3 years.

Agent Helix

10-28-2008, 06:30 AM

Microwaveable.

Chocolate chip.

Corn dog.

Charles RB

10-28-2008, 07:01 AM

University eduction was free all over Germany when I studied, but some of the states are now raising tuition fees. Still lots of parts of the federation where you can study for free, though.

What the hell were German students doing going to my University then?! :eek:

Calybos

10-28-2008, 09:45 AM

Highest percentage of white people voting dem in 30 years. Read the article.

I did. That's why I'm questioning the title, which should have been "White support for DEMOCRATS at a historic level."

beetlebum

10-29-2008, 10:07 AM

Um, I actually like Hillary so no, I don't think it wouldve been bad if she won.

Furthermore, it STILL is pathetic and it does apply to my own country as well. There's something just plain wrong that in country where more than HALF of the population are female, we couldn't find one that is good enough to lead the country.

Hell, black make up 15% of the American population and yet a black politican is going to elected president before a woman. You honestly don't think that's kind of sad?

Um, no.

I don't think that it's pathetic that a black man will be elected President of the United States. I think that's actually a sign of progress.

I do think that it is kind of sad that the two major parties keep choosing incompetent men over qualified women (with the exception of the current Dem nominee).

Also, about university fees: Although student loans can be a huuuggee burden, I rather like the current system we have in place.

My half sister has a Master's Degree, and we grew up lower middle class.

Global rankings for universities. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_and_university_rankings)

American universities dominated most of those lists.

Though I do think that we have to work on making college more affordable for everyone.

AllisterH

10-29-2008, 01:18 PM

Um, no.

I don't think that it's pathetic that a black man will be elected President of the United States. I think that's actually a sign of progress.

.

That's not what I mean.

Yu don't think it is well, strange, given the populaton breakdown that a black male can be elected to the presidency BEFORE a female (be it either black or white?)

the4thpip

10-29-2008, 01:25 PM

What the hell were German students doing going to my University then?! :eek:

Well, if they were from rich families, an education abroad may have opened up certain job opportunities for them. Or they may have gotten scholarships. I very nearly got one to study a few semesters in the US.

Buzz Dixon

10-29-2008, 02:40 PM

That's not what I mean.

Yu don't think it is well, strange, given the populaton breakdown that a black male can be elected to the presidency BEFORE a female (be it either black or white?)No, the better CANDIDATE is going to get elected. While she's got the necessary brain power, I don't think Hillary has the temperment to be an effective president. I think she'd be more interested in payback than in actually working with people.

Charles RB

10-29-2008, 04:15 PM

Well, if they were from rich families, an education abroad may have opened up certain job opportunities for them. Or they may have gotten scholarships. I very nearly got one to study a few semesters in the US.

They didn't seem that rich.

I know one said she was doing it because German Uni was too laid back.

(She was in my Understanding Terror seminar and was blond-haired and blue-eyed, causing hilarity for me in our sem on state terrorism when the tutor ended the seminar with a form "in Nazi Germany, for example, most of you would not be here" line she must've done for every seminar.)

Buzz Dixon

10-29-2008, 04:17 PM

I know one said she was doing it because German Uni was too laid back.I'm sorry, but I'm having a terrible time visualizing a laid back German...

MacQuarrie

10-29-2008, 06:52 PM

His response to me had to do with my comment about Europeans being socialist since a college education is free there. But, instead of focusing on the point which is that Europeans can get actual degrees for free, he tried to make it about sitting in classes in America for free, even though he knows that's not the same thing since you can't get a degree that way, whereas in Europe you can get a degree for free.

Again with the "free."

A college education is not "free" in Europe or anywhere else. It is taxpayer-subsidized. Instead of the student paying for the education, everybody pays for it, in the belief that educated people make better, more productive citizens. But it's not free.

This country will never get better until people understand that nothing is free. Even under socialism, nothing is free.

mattx110

10-29-2008, 06:58 PM

I'm sorry, but I'm having a terrible time visualizing a laid back German...
I'm having trouble not using one of roughly three nazi jokes perfect for this occassion.

beetlebum

10-29-2008, 07:19 PM

That's not what I mean.

Yu don't think it is well, strange, given the populaton breakdown that a black male can be elected to the presidency BEFORE a female (be it either black or white?)

First of all, it's "meant".

And second of all, I already answered that question with the second sentence in that post:

I do think that it is kind of sad that the two major parties keep choosing incompetent men over qualified women (with the exception of the current Dem nominee).

Though in Palin's case, I think that woman if far from qualified....

FYI: Like I said before, I don't think it's strange that a black man was chosen before a woman was. It just means that he was more qualified than Hillary.

Berserk

10-29-2008, 08:58 PM

Again with the "free."

A college education is not "free" in Europe or anywhere else. It is taxpayer-subsidized. Instead of the student paying for the education, everybody pays for it, in the belief that educated people make better, more productive citizens. But it's not free.

This country will never get better until people understand that nothing is free. Even under socialism, nothing is free.

I know that. That's why I don't like socialism. It forces everyone to pay higher taxes in order to fund all those free things and especially when it comes to health care, it means longer lines and poorer quality health care under a socialized system. America has the best health care in the world for people who can afford it, which is the vast majority of Americans; you get what you pay for.

MacQuarrie

10-29-2008, 09:05 PM

I know that. That's why I don't like socialism. It forces everyone to pay higher taxes in order to fund all those free things and especially when it comes to health care, it means longer lines and poorer quality health care under a socialized system. America has the best health care in the world for people who can afford it, which is the vast majority of Americans; you get what you pay for.

Problem is, by using terms like "free education", you validate the Socialist position. That's their terminology; by using it, you cede territory to them.

Berserk

10-29-2008, 09:09 PM

Problem is, by using terms like "free education", you validate the Socialist position. That's their terminology; by using it, you cede territory to them.

True. But, when I say those things, I'm operating under the impression that the people who are reading my posts understand that it's not really free but rather paid for by increased tax dollars. Just as it's not free to go to the public library and check out books; since your tax dollars go towards building and funding public libraries, it's also not really free if you don't have to pay for health care upfront.

Tommy

10-29-2008, 09:54 PM

America has the best health care in the world for people who can afford it, which is the vast majority of Americans; you get what you pay for.

That's the funniest thing I think I've ever seen on these boards. EVER.

KPhoebe

10-29-2008, 10:23 PM

That's the funniest thing I think I've ever seen on these boards. EVER.

For. Serious.

How about: "America has the best healthcare for those who can afford it, and everyone else can get fucked because they aren't *trying* hard enough because all you need to succeed is effort! CARING FOR THOSE WHO CAN'T AFFORD HEALTHCARE IS SOCIALISM AND SOCIALISM IS AUTOMATICALLY BAD!!!"

Tommy

10-29-2008, 10:26 PM

How about: "America has the best healthcare for those who can afford it, and everyone else can get fucked because they aren't *trying* hard enough because all you need to succeed is effort! CARING FOR THOSE WHO CAN'T AFFORD HEALTHCARE IS SOCIALISM AND SOCIALISM IS AUTOMATICALLY BAD!!!"

How about: "America has the best healthcare the world for those who can afford it, which is only the upper upper class. Anyone below that line and you should just go to El Salvador."

beetlebum

10-29-2008, 10:33 PM

The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care.

But spending more does not necessarily translate into good quality.

Linky. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/business/17health.html)

Also, I've been uninsured for about six years now; my mother cut off her insurance payments for me when I was 18 (she couldn't afford to pay.)

The only silver lining in my current plight is that I live in the state of California, and may be able to qualify for MediCal.

Berserk

10-29-2008, 10:44 PM

That's the funniest thing I think I've ever seen on these boards. EVER.

The vast majority of Americans have health insurance. Only 40 million out of 300 million Americans don't have health insurance, and of those 40 million, only 8 million are really uninsured since a large percentage of those 40 million are people who can afford health insurance but choose not to get it; I'm talking people who make more than 50,000 or 75,000 a year. Also, a large percentage of those who don't have health care are young people between the ages of 18-30. Even though they can get private insurance for a cheap price, since they are young(about $100 a month), they choose not to because they'd rather spend the money on non-essentials; such as eating out several times a month. Only about 8 million Americans are really uninsured. We have a good health care system in America.

Berserk

10-29-2008, 10:44 PM

Tommy

10-29-2008, 11:00 PM

beetlebum

10-29-2008, 11:09 PM

The vast majority of Americans have health insurance. Only 40 million out of 300 million Americans don't have health insurance, and of those 40 million, only 8 million are really uninsured since a large percentage of those 40 million are people who can afford health insurance but choose not to get it; I'm talking people who make more than 50,000 or 75,000 a year. Also, a large percentage of those who don't have health care are young people between the ages of 18-30. Even though they can get private insurance for a cheap price, since they are young(about $100 a month), they choose not to because they'd rather spend the money on non-essentials; such as eating out several times a month. Only about 8 million Americans are really uninsured. We have a good health care system in America.

Jesus Christ; I'm amazed at just how many damn people are ignorant about the plight of their fellow Americans.

I'm beginning to wonder why I even bother to engage in political discussions with people who are so high and mighty that they might as well be having nose bleeds from the moral high grounds they've chosen to occupy.

I am unemployed at the moment, and I have to literally make a choice between paying car insurance, helping my mother pay the rent and health insurance.

The last time I splurged on any clothes was when I spent ten dollars at the thrift store.

And what you seem to not be comprehending that there are millions of people out there who work as many as two jobs at a time and are still having a rough go of things.

Two links as to why Americans cannot afford health insurance:

http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

http://www.bloggernews.net/110522

And for the record, I'm not asking for the government to pay my way entirely. If I could, I would opt for a private insurer. But asking that my tax dollars be put to work for something other than military expenditures is not that taxing of a request, now is it?

Why don't you take that into consideration before casting aspersions and making assumptions based on your own extrapolations of what is, actually, reality.

MacQuarrie

10-30-2008, 01:14 AM

You can probably afford private insurance for a cheap price; about $100 a month. Some people spend that much on their cell phone bills. Invest in your health.

Dude, that's pretty clueless. Back when I was stealing toilet paper from work so we'd have some at home, and my wife was working a second job scrubbing toilets, if somebody said something was cheap at "only" $100 a month, our response was "might as well be a million."

EDITED to add: For the first 15 years of our married lives, our family was on the DGS health plan: "Don't Get Sick." The doctor is that guy you go see if you have bones sticking through the skin or blood spurting out. Lack of medical coverage is the norm for a lot of people, "cheap" or not.

Larime

10-30-2008, 01:37 AM

Tommy

10-30-2008, 01:39 AM

Dude, that's pretty clueless. Back when I was stealing toilet paper from work so we'd have some at home, and my wife was working a second job scrubbing toilets, if somebody said something was cheap at "only" $100 a month, our response was "might as well be a million."

Not to mention those "cheap" policies have such high deductibles that actually getting medical treatment probably will result in bankruptcy. Thus what exactly is the point of getting it in the first place?

Speaking as one of those college students who'd rather spend money on "non-essentials," I could only afford to buy textbooks this semester because I got a job that subsidizes my housing and food, thus freeing up some financial aid. As it was I STILL had to drop a class because I simply couldn't afford the book. If I got one of those $100 policies, which I can't afford, I still couldn't afford to go to the doctor's office, let alone get an expensive procedure. In our area, and I know this because I got to talk to the head of social services for it, the most rapidly growing population living below the poverty line are college students, and it isn't because they spending money on "non-essentials." It is because being a full time student is FUCKING EXPENSIVE.

I'd say some one needs to barrow a buck fifty so he can go to the corner market to buy a clue.

Tobias March

10-30-2008, 03:31 AM

mattx110

10-30-2008, 09:05 AM

I lolled and then I cried....but then I lolled some more. Beautifully done.
I've got one tear.

Charles RB

10-30-2008, 11:11 AM

especially when it comes to health care, it means longer lines and poorer quality health care under a socialized system. America has the best health care in the world for people who can afford it, which is the vast majority of Americans; you get what you pay for.

Er... while I admit the NHS is not perfect by any means and long waits at the GP's is a pain when they happen, I am calling "balls" on this idea most Americans can afford the best health-care in the world.

Because that's not what I've heard from Americans. I've heard the complete opposite. I've heard about them being unable to afford health-care, being stuck with horrific bills, taxing taxis to the fucking hospital because it's cheaper than the ambulance, health insurance companies suddenly ending the coverage when the insurance holder is ill, having asthma inhalers last longer than they're meant to because of the replacement costs...

Your health-care system sounds wank, and that's Americans telling me it's wank. And I presume they would know.

Let me put it this way - above me is an anecdote on being a student without healthcare insurance and being unable to afford it, and this matches things I've heard from American students a lot.

I could walk in and see either a GP or a hospital nurse for no at-the-door charge, including to get a diagnosis - as well as (this was in Wales) free-at-delivery prescription, including for a painkiller when I was hit with a constant-vomiting stomach bug. I am very fucking glad I did not study in the States.

Buzz Dixon

10-30-2008, 11:13 AM

Meanwhile, back on topic...
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/10/30/image001.jpg

(...and if the pic doesn't come through... http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/10/30/image001.jpg )

Berserk

10-30-2008, 04:25 PM

Jesus Christ; I'm amazed at just how many damn people are ignorant about the plight of their fellow Americans.

I'm beginning to wonder why I even bother to engage in political discussions with people who are so high and mighty that they might as well be having nose bleeds from the moral high grounds they've chosen to occupy.

I am unemployed at the moment, and I have to literally make a choice between paying car insurance, helping my mother pay the rent and health insurance.

The last time I splurged on any clothes was when I spent ten dollars at the thrift store.

And what you seem to not be comprehending that there are millions of people out there who work as many as two jobs at a time and are still having a rough go of things.

Two links as to why Americans cannot afford health insurance:

http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

http://www.bloggernews.net/110522

And for the record, I'm not asking for the government to pay my way entirely. If I could, I would opt for a private insurer. But asking that my tax dollars be put to work for something other than military expenditures is not that taxing of a request, now is it?

Why don't you take that into consideration before casting aspersions and making assumptions based on your own extrapolations of what is, actually, reality.

Maybe if you'd get a job, you could afford health insurance. I'm not saying that health insurance will fall out of trees. Most Americans are insured through their job. Don't complain about not having health insurance if you don't have a job; that makes no sense. So, you'd prefer that the people who actually do work and are taxed pay for you to get free health insurance? Like I said before, you get what you pay for; if you don't pay anything at all then you should get nothing. It's simple.

And, for the people who are criticizing me about my views; that I don't know what I'm talking about, check out this video; it ought to clear up your misconceptions about the American health care system:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKCWbq18bNk

Berserk

10-30-2008, 04:32 PM

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS EXCESSIVE USE OF THE WORD 'FUCK' IN MANY OF ITS VARIOUS FORMS.

Hey, newsflash! The fucking reason there are are waiting lines for SOME surgeries (not fucking life-threatening conditions) in Canada and Britain...?

IS BECAUSE EVERYBODY CAN ACTUALLY SEE A FUCKING DOCTOR AND GET SHIT FIXED WHEN IT FUCKING NEEDS TO BE FUCKING FIXED!

Imagine that! If everyone could actually GO to a fucking DOCTOR, there would be fucking LINES! Whoa! How the fuck would that happen? I dunno, maybe because there are 300 MILLION OF US!

The fact that you don't wait in a fucking line NOW is only because OTHER people are going without. But it would be TRAGIC if you were inconvenienced because my wife could ACTUALLY GET FUCKING MEDICAL TREATMENT.

Fuck I hate people.

Part of the reason why there's longer lines is of course that more people are getting treated. However, the trend in every country where health care is socialized is that people end up going to hospitals for tiny issues; things they usually wouldn't bother with and can be solved with over the counter medicines. So, hospitals end up jammed up with people who aren't really sick but come in anyways. But even worse than the long lines is the decreased quality of health care. It's a fact that the quality of health care goes down in countries where health care is socialized. Japan is going through that right now as the high demand and low funding leads to hospitals having to make cutbacks and therefore not getting the equipment they need or if they have it; not enough of it. Also, on average doctors get paid less in countries where health care is socialized because they aren't receiving enough payment from the government for the amount of work they do; so overall the hospitals and doctors suffer. I'd rather have a system like the one we have in the U.S. where hospitals and doctors are well compensated so that the quality of health care is good.

Berserk

10-30-2008, 04:36 PM

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a98/thanatos101b/menusign.jpg

Seriously, are those supposed to be "facts?" Because there are more children who are uninsured than your supposed "really uninsured" number.

The vast majority of children receive insurance through their parents plan. Check out the video I posted above.

Tommy

10-30-2008, 04:56 PM

The vast majority of children receive insurance through their parents plan. Check out the video I posted above.

I'm watching. The first two minutes contain bold faced emotional manipulation and not even poorly concealed bias.

I'm going to keep watching, but I already know it is CRAP.

Edited to add: That was pure crap, as I knew. The statistics were (being generous) simply wrong, being realistic, they were lies. The interviews where emotional manipulation at its best. Important contextual information such as the exorbitant price of deductibles and real examination of living conditions were left out.

ALSO you haven't answered the initial point in the post I made, which is more children are without insurance than the number you claim as the total number of really uninsured. Stop shifting the goalposts.

Nick Soapdish

10-30-2008, 05:00 PM

The vast majority of Americans have health insurance. Only 40 million out of 300 million Americans don't have health insurance, and of those 40 million, only 8 million are really uninsured since a large percentage of those 40 million are people who can afford health insurance but choose not to get it; I'm talking people who make more than 50,000 or 75,000 a year. Also, a large percentage of those who don't have health care are young people between the ages of 18-30. Even though they can get private insurance for a cheap price, since they are young(about $100 a month), they choose not to because they'd rather spend the money on non-essentials; such as eating out several times a month. Only about 8 million Americans are really uninsured. We have a good health care system in America.

I haven't seen your subsequent YouTube because I can't watch that at work, but here's a slightly different set of figures, compiled by the Tennessean ConserVOLiance (http://tncva.wordpress.com/2007/12/09/the-true-number-of-uninsured-american/).

47 million uninsured Americans
9.5 million of those are non-citizens (which isn't the same as illegal aliens)
37.5 million uninsured citizens
17 million of those make over $50K
20.5 million uninsured Americans that can't afford it

It's still less than 10% of the population, but it's a lot more than the 8 million that you're throwing around. And it's by deciding that a lot of people don't count. I'd easily argue that a family making $75K can't afford over a thousand each month for insurance. I make roughly half of that $75K and I couldn't afford half of that $1000 each month. And it's expensive to raise kids.

I do have health insurance. I've had it for a couple years now. The previous few years, I had one of those $100 a month plans. Basically, it's a don't-get-hurt plan. I could afford to see the doctor and get medicine for minor problems. But if I had a serious medical expense, it would've been paid by my credit cards or I'd have to have set up a payment plan with the hospital. Probably both. Fortunately, I didn't get very sick so I didn't see the doctor for 15 years.

Now, I have a better plan as of this September thanks to a promotion at work. I'll be ok (financially) if I have an accident and it's not covered by somebody else's insurance. But those $100 plans aren't much of a safeguard.

Tommy

10-30-2008, 05:19 PM

Part of the reason why there's longer lines is of course that more people are getting treated. However, the trend in every country where health care is socialized is that people end up going to hospitals for tiny issues; things they usually wouldn't bother with and can be solved with over the counter medicines. So, hospitals end up jammed up with people who aren't really sick but come in anyways.

That's not true. The net result is that people in those countries have longer lifespans since they don't have avoid preventative medicine due to the cost. That's why the United States has a lower life span, and our elderly have more health problems than any place else in the industrialized world.

But even worse than the long lines is the decreased quality of health care. It's a fact that the quality of health care goes down in countries where health care is socialized. Japan is going through that right now as the high demand and low funding leads to hospitals having to make cutbacks and therefore not getting the equipment they need or if they have it; not enough of it. Also, on average doctors get paid less in countries where health care is socialized because they aren't receiving enough payment from the government for the amount of work they do; so overall the hospitals and doctors suffer. I'd rather have a system like the one we have in the U.S. where hospitals and doctors are well compensated so that the quality of health care is good.

In 2007 the WHO rankings put the United States at #37. Number one is France. It is LAUGHABLE you claim that it is a "fact" quality goes down. If Japan is deteriorating why is it now ranked higher than it was four years ago?

As far as compensation for doctors, yes they do make less. Since there is a greater emphasis on preventative medicine, expensive surgeries and hospital stays are less common. Drug companies can't offer incentives to prescribe their products. And so on...

Berserk

10-30-2008, 05:53 PM

I haven't seen your subsequent YouTube because I can't watch that at work, but here's a slightly different set of figures, compiled by the Tennessean ConserVOLiance (http://tncva.wordpress.com/2007/12/09/the-true-number-of-uninsured-american/).

47 million uninsured Americans
9.5 million of those are non-citizens (which isn't the same as illegal aliens)
37.5 million uninsured citizens
17 million of those make over $50K
20.5 million uninsured Americans that can't afford it

It's still less than 10% of the population, but it's a lot more than the 8 million that you're throwing around. And it's by deciding that a lot of people don't count. I'd easily argue that a family making $75K can't afford over a thousand each month for insurance. I make roughly half of that $75K and I couldn't afford half of that $1000 each month. And it's expensive to raise kids.

I do have health insurance. I've had it for a couple years now. The previous few years, I had one of those $100 a month plans. Basically, it's a don't-get-hurt plan. I could afford to see the doctor and get medicine for minor problems. But if I had a serious medical expense, it would've been paid by my credit cards or I'd have to have set up a payment plan with the hospital. Probably both. Fortunately, I didn't get very sick so I didn't see the doctor for 15 years.

Now, I have a better plan as of this September thanks to a promotion at work. I'll be ok (financially) if I have an accident and it's not covered by somebody else's insurance. But those $100 plans aren't much of a safeguard.

Most people who make $75,000 can get health insurance through their job. If they choose to opt out of their employer health care plan, then that's their problem if they can't afford a private health insurance plan. My parents are insured through their employers and I got great health care when I was under their plan; my co-payments were very low; around $5 for most treatments; and the employer would pay the rest.

Berserk

10-30-2008, 05:56 PM

That's not true. The net result is that people in those countries have longer lifespans since they don't have avoid preventative medicine due to the cost. That's why the United States has a lower life span, and our elderly have more health problems than any place else in the industrialized world.

In 2007 the WHO rankings put the United States at #37. Number one is France. It is LAUGHABLE you claim that it is a "fact" quality goes down. If Japan is deteriorating why is it now ranked higher than it was four years ago?

As far as compensation for doctors, yes they do make less. Since there is a greater emphasis on preventative medicine, expensive surgeries and hospital stays are less common. Drug companies can't offer incentives to prescribe their products. And so on...

They probably figure in the ease and availability of health care into those rankings, so of course the countries with socialized health care system will outrank the U.S. in that regard. However, when it comes to the quality of health care at U.S. hospitals for those who can afford it, I'd say that we rank #1.

Nick Soapdish

10-30-2008, 06:05 PM

Most people who make $75,000 can get health insurance through their job. If they choose to opt out of their employer health care plan, then that's their problem if they can't afford a private health insurance plan. My parents are insured through their employers and I got great health care when I was under their plan; my co-payments were very low; around $5 for most treatments; and the employer would pay the rest.

About 25% of households make over $75,000. About 3% of Americans have a household income over $75000 and don't have health insurance (and another 3%are between $50,000 and $75,000 which is another quarter of American households).

So about 87% of these people do have health insurance, probably from their jobs. Is that the "most" that you're talking about?

Uninsured among those making over $75,000 rising (http://www4.vindy.com/content/national_world/344682189450082.php). And if you read the article, you'll notice that it's because the companies aren't offering insurance any more.

Evan Waters

10-30-2008, 06:07 PM

Berserk

10-30-2008, 06:10 PM

About 25% of households make over $75,000. About 3% of Americans have a household income over $75000 and don't have health insurance (and another 3%are between $50,000 and $75,000 which is another quarter of American households).

So about 87% of these people do have health insurance, probably from their jobs. Is that the "most" that you're talking about?

Uninsured among those making over $75,000 rising (http://www4.vindy.com/content/national_world/344682189450082.php). And if you read the article, you'll notice that it's because the companies aren't offering insurance any more.

Yea, that seems right. So, 87% of Americans who make $50,000 or more have health insurance. I'm guessing most of them are covered through their employer rather than a private insurance plan. The most wealthy Americans are probably covered through private plans since they can get better health care that way.

Tommy

10-30-2008, 06:10 PM

They probably figure in the ease and availability of health care into those rankings, so of course the countries with socialized health care system will outrank the U.S. in that regard. However, when it comes to the quality of health care at U.S. hospitals for those who can afford it, I'd say that we rank #1.

Of course we do. And those who can afford it are the insanely wealthy. Everyone, even the lower upper class, has worse heath coverage than the poorest residents of most industrialized nations.

And ease and availability isn't one of the criteria examined. Health Distribution is.

Berserk

10-30-2008, 06:11 PM

And what about those of us with pre-existing conditions?

I sympathize with such people, and I would support government regulations to make sure that insurance companies cannot turn down such people. I'm not a heartless bastard.

Tobias March

10-30-2008, 06:12 PM

Berserk

10-30-2008, 06:14 PM

Of course we do. And those who can afford it are the insanely wealthy. Everyone, even the lower upper class, has worse heath coverage than the poorest residents of most industrialized nations.

And ease and availability isn't one of the criteria examined. Health Distribution is.

I disagree. If you make over $75,000 in America, you can get a better health care plan than the ones that socialized countries offer to the average person. My parents only made about $55,000 combined income and we had a great health care plan which covered practically everything, including psychiatric issues and we had very low co-payments. That might seem surprising to you but the fact is that employer based health care works well. Anyone who is part of the lower upper class in America has much better health care than anywhere else in the world; you think someone making more than $250,000 years has difficulty finding good health care? I need whatever you're smoking.

Berserk

10-30-2008, 06:17 PM

I have to say, I was a little surprised to discover when I read over this thread that I grew up in a socialist utopia. My mother and father are a nurse and teacher respectively back in Dublin, so we didn't earn a lot of money as a family, but college and hospital bills never crippled me financially. For that I'm grateful.

There are positive aspects to socialism, but overall I don't think it works as well as the system that we have here in America. I've read news stories about socialist European countries where generations of families who don't work get government welfare which is equivalent to $40,000 in the U.S. While I'd love to get $40,000 a year for just sitting on my ass and watching television, I don't think it's fair to the people who actually do work and pay taxes to have to support the lazy people in their society.

Tommy

10-30-2008, 06:21 PM

I disagree. If you make over $75,000 in America, you can get a better health care plan than the ones that socialized countries offer to the average person. My parents only made about $55,000 combined income and we had a great health care plan which covered practically everything, including psychiatric issues and we had very low co-payments. That might seem surprising to you but the fact is that employer based health care works well. Anyone who is part of the lower upper class in America has much better health care than anywhere else in the world; you think someone making more than $250,000 years has difficulty finding good health care? I need whatever you're smoking.

You keep throwing that word around, but I do not think it means what you believe it does.

And Nick Soapdish JUST pointed out companies are slashing benefits. Between raising children, crappy economy, and inherited debt (such as a mortgage and credit card bills from a bull economy), extended family expenses, someone can make a lot of money and not afford health care.

And the WHO disagrees with you. The infant mortality rate in the US disagrees with you. The general health of our elderly disagrees with you. The life expectancy in the US disagrees with you. Those are actual facts, with sources.

Berserk

10-30-2008, 06:27 PM

You keep throwing that word around, but I do not think it means what you believe it does.

And Nick Soapdish JUST pointed out companies are slashing benefits. Between raising children, crappy economy, and inherited debt (such as a mortgage and credit card bills from a bull economy), extended family expenses, someone can make a lot of money and not afford health care.

And the WHO disagrees with you. The infant mortality rate in the US disagrees with you. The general health of our elderly disagrees with you. The life expectancy in the US disagrees with you. Those are actual facts, with sources.

It's a system where you get what you pay for. If you want a country where everyone is healthy, then yes you should choose socialism. However, if you want a country where people pay for their own health care, either through their employer or through a private health care plan without burdening others with their health care expenses, then the system that America has is best. I don't want to have to pay much higher taxes in order to socialize the health care system. Even though I'm supporting him, Barack Obama is wrong in this regard; health care is not a right.

Evan Waters

10-30-2008, 06:35 PM

It's a system where you get what you pay for. If you want a country where everyone is healthy, then yes you should choose socialism. However, if you want a country where people pay for their own health care, either through their employer or through a private health care plan without burdening others with their health care expenses, then the system that America has is best.

So, you think the principle of paying your own way is more important than what actually has the best results?

Berserk

10-30-2008, 06:59 PM

So, you think the principle of paying your own way is more important than what actually has the best results?

If you mean the best results for me then yes, I agree with the current system. But, if we're talking the best results for the entire country then obviously a socialized health care system would be better. However, my argument is that I don't believe I should be forced to pay much higher taxes in order to guarantee that everyone can get health care. At some point, people should take some responsibility for themselves; the government can't take care of everything for them, nor should it.

Charles RB

10-30-2008, 07:02 PM

Maybe if you'd get a job, you could afford health insurance.

a) America doesn't have the capacity for 100% employment.

b) There's a global economic crisis going on, you might have noticed - not only does this make it harder for many to find jobs, there are and will be layoffs.

c) There are people with jobs who still can't afford health insurance that's worth a damn. Quite a few post here.

I also passed that quote onto an American and got the response: "I FUCKING HAD A JOB AND I STILL COULDN'T FUCKING AFFORD IT GIVE ME THAT BASTARD I'LL CUT HIS BALLS OFF"

But even worse than the long lines is the decreased quality of health care. It's a fact that the quality of health care goes down in countries where health care is socialized

We've recently been having problems with infection in English hospitals because... the government had private companies do the cleaning instead of in-house staff. Hardly a good indication we need more privatisation.

And anecdotally, I've had almost no problems on the NHS with quality of service.

KPhoebe

10-30-2008, 07:06 PM

It's a system where you get what you pay for. If you want a country where everyone is healthy, then yes you should choose socialism.

And so, duh, I choose socialism. You don't want to pay higher taxes - when you're in a higher tax bracket and can afford it - to make sure everyone in your society is guaranteed a base level of care. I think that's inhumane.

Hell, I pay for Medicare in Australia when I'm not eligible for it (I *am* eligible for emergency treatment) and I'm okay with that.

As it happens though, you're wrong. Socialised medical care means better *preventative* treatment, which means a generally healthier populace, which means less expensive ER intervention, which costs so much more to government and patient alike.

Financially and ethically, universal medical care is the better option.

Berserk

10-30-2008, 07:07 PM

a) America doesn't have the capacity for 100% employment.

b) There's a global economic crisis going on, you might have noticed - not only does this make it harder for many to find jobs, there are and will be layoffs.

c) There are people with jobs who still can't afford health insurance that's worth a damn. Quite a few post here.

I also passed that quote onto an American and got the response: "I FUCKING HAD A JOB AND I STILL COULDN'T FUCKING AFFORD IT GIVE ME THAT BASTARD I'LL CUT HIS BALLS OFF"

So, basically what you're saying is that even if someone doesn't have a job that they should get health insurance? I think it's immoral to force people to have to pay the medical bills of others. If you contribute to the tax system, then you have an argument for getting health care, but if you don't even pay taxes because you don't have a job then you cannot reasonably expect me to support your demand for free health care; and it would be free in your case because you wouldn't be paying any taxes.

We've recently been having problems with infection in English hospitals because... the government had private companies do the cleaning instead of in-house staff. Hardly a good indication we need more privatisation.

And anecdotally, I've had almost no problems on the NHS with quality of service.

I don't see how that applies to your point. If anything, it proves that giving the government control over anything ends up making it worse; since such a huge bureaucracy is less efficient than if people handled things themselves.

Michael P

10-30-2008, 07:09 PM

There are positive aspects to socialism, but overall I don't think it works as well as the system that we have here in America.

The system we have here in America is a mix of capitalism and socialism.

And it's not doing too hot right now, in case your TV's been busted for the last couple months.

Berserk

10-30-2008, 07:10 PM

And so, duh, I choose socialism. You don't want to pay higher taxes - when you're in a higher tax bracket and can afford it - to make sure everyone in your society is guaranteed a base level of care. I think that's inhumane.

Hell, I pay for Medicare in Australia when I'm not eligible for it (I *am* eligible for emergency treatment) and I'm okay with that.

As it happens though, you're wrong. Socialised medical care means better *preventative* treatment, which means a generally healthier populace, which means less expensive ER intervention, which costs so much more to government and patient alike.

Financially and ethically, universal medical care is the better option.

Perhaps ethically, but not financially; otherwise people in countries with socialized health care wouldn't be paying higher taxes. Your argument about preventative medicine doesn't make much sense in a socialized system since it wouldn't matter either way whether a person is getting preventative medicine if the government raised taxes to a certain amount; whether or not less people get treated, the government would still tax the same amount.

Berserk

10-30-2008, 07:12 PM

The system we have here in America is a mix of capitalism and socialism.

And it's not doing too hot right now, in case your TV's been busted for the last couple months.

The whole world is going through an economic crisis; not just America. And, the cause of this economic crisis is the collapse of banks; the banks in socialist countries collapsed as well; since the banking systems are intricately tied together globally.

Larime

10-30-2008, 07:12 PM

Maybe if you'd get a job, you could afford health insurance.

Yeah, Beetlebum, you dirty fucking hippie. Just get a fucking job and you'll be set.

Unless you're, say... my Dad, who was paying $800/month for his premiums through his employer and then couldn't AFFORD to actually send my Mom to the doctor because they now couldn't afford the co-pay. But he's just one of you lazy, low-class, dirty fucking hippies. You know the kind, third generation tradesman, blue collar as they come, working 50+ hour weeks in the desert heat laying brick, block and stone. What a fucking ingrate. Doesn't he know we have the best healthcare system in the world?

USA! USA! USA!

Larime

10-30-2008, 07:14 PM

So, basically what you're saying is that even if someone doesn't have a job that they should get health insurance? I think it's immoral to force people to have to pay the medical bills of others. If you contribute to the tax system, then you have an argument for getting health care, but if you don't even pay taxes because you don't have a job then you cannot reasonably expect me to support your demand for free health care; and it would be free in your case because you wouldn't be paying any taxes.

Yeah. Fuck the elderly, this disabled, the mentally ill, and those lazy bastards who just can't find a job, no matter how hard they try. Lazy bastards. GET A JOB!

KPhoebe

10-30-2008, 07:18 PM

Perhaps ethically, but not financially; otherwise people in countries with socialized health care wouldn't be paying higher taxes. Your argument about preventative medicine doesn't make much sense in a socialized system since it wouldn't matter either way whether a person is getting preventative medicine if the government raised taxes to a certain amount; whether or not less people get treated, the government would still tax the same amount.

You don't actually know what you're talking about.

Income tax rates by country. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg)

Of the countries with socialised health care, you will note that some higher and some lower than the US.

Berserk

10-30-2008, 07:22 PM

Yeah. Fuck the elderly, this disabled, the mentally ill, and those lazy bastards who just can't find a job, no matter how hard they try. Lazy bastards. GET A JOB!

If the elderly weren't smart enough to save up money for their retirement then it's their fault if they don't end up getting health care coverage. That's the problem with socialism; it tries to bring everyone down to the least common denominator. If you aren't smart enough to realize that at one point you're going to get old and so you better prepare for that time, then you shouldn't get a dime of my or other taxpayers money other than social security. The disabled and mentally ill are a different matter; I don't mind my tax dollars going towards them, since I can't expect them to hold to the same standards as fully capable people.

Charles RB

10-30-2008, 07:23 PM

And what about those of us with pre-existing conditions?

Hell, I heard someone once recount how their insurance company dumped their mother because she'd developed a condition.

I didn't even know insurance companies could do that.

If you make over $75,000 in America, you can get a better health care plan than the ones that socialized countries offer to the average person.

If you make vast amounts of money, then yes, you can afford great health care.

Since most people will not make that much money, that's not really relevant. That's like saying there's no food crisis in Zimbabwe because Mugabe's eating fine.

If you want a country where everyone is healthy

Why the FUCK wouldn't you? A healthy population is one that can work more; pragmatically, it is in the national interest for the populace to be healthy.

if we're talking the best results for the entire country then obviously a socialized health care system would be better. However, my argument is that I don't believe I should be forced to pay much higher taxes in order to guarantee that everyone can get health care

You pay taxes already, which go to defence, education etc - things believed to be for the best of the entire country. You are already paying this.

Also, you pay health insurance? Then you're already paying a de facto tax - and the money you spend goes into a big pot and is drawn out to pay for other people's health, because that is how insurance works.

Kalen O.

10-30-2008, 07:26 PM

If the elderly weren't smart enough to save up money for their retirement then it's their fault if they don't end up getting health care coverage.

.....That whole bit about people losing their retirement funds and 401Ks rapidly dwindling in value was lost on you, huh. I mean, imagine, people who were smart enough to put away money, and yet due to external situations that weren't in any way their fault, still got screwed. Huh.

Berserk

10-30-2008, 07:30 PM

You don't actually know what you're talking about.

Income tax rates by country. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg)

Of the countries with socialised health care, you will note that some higher and some lower than the US.

Part of what makes the tax rates in the U.S. so high is having to pay for a huge defense budget and also having to pay for social security, medicaid, medicare, and the new prescription drug bill. So, the fact that our tax rates are so high have a large reason to do with some aspects of our country that are already socialist.

Berserk

10-30-2008, 07:32 PM

.....That whole bit about people losing their retirement funds and 401Ks rapidly dwindling in value was lost on you, huh. I mean, imagine, people who were smart enough to put away money, and yet due to external situations that weren't in any way their fault, still got screwed. Huh.

The people who lost their money for those reasons I think should get compensated for it. Instead of bailing out banks, I think the U.S. should have bailed out those people. Anyone who worked hard and lost a large portion of their pension deserves what they worked for rather than what they got.

Charles RB

10-30-2008, 07:36 PM

So, basically what you're saying is that even if someone doesn't have a job that they should get health insurance?

I'm saying that the claim "if you want insurance, get a job!" is ignorant. It is ignorant of the fact that people WITH jobs can't afford proper insurance coverage, and it is ignorant that there is an economic crisis restricting the number of jobs, and it is ignorant that it might be impossible at the time to get a job.

Oh, and it's also ignorant of the fact that unemployed people might be looking for jobs, in which case saying "get a job!" is dumb.

By the way, yes, I do think the unemployed should get health coverage. They're hardly going to ever be unemployed if they contract terminal cancer.

I think it's immoral to force people to have to pay the medical bills of others.

It's about as immoral as forcing people to pay for the costs of educating other people's children, or forcing them to pay for road/infrastructure maintainence even if they don't use that infrastructure, or forcing them to pay for the police service if they never have problems with crime.

I don't see how that applies to your point.

The logic of doing it was that private companies would be more efficient. And they weren't.

And yet, despite that, the average person is still getting good coverage. (And Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland run their NHS branches differently, so they're not having the same problem. They, in fact, run them more socialist)

Berserk

10-30-2008, 07:41 PM

Why the FUCK wouldn't you? A healthy population is one that can work more; pragmatically, it is in the national interest for the populace to be healthy.

My interests don't always reflect national interests. Sure it's nice to have a nation of healthy and productive people, but that won't make me feel much better about the huge chunk of money that's being taken away from me in order to pay for it. At some point, we have to be responsible for ourselves. The government can't provide everything for us, nor should it. I don't want to live in a country where everything is "free" and like 90% of my income is stolen from me in order to pay for all of that "free" stuff.

You pay taxes already, which go to defence, education etc - things believed to be for the best of the entire country. You are already paying this.

Yes, I'm paying for an education system that's broken and a huge military that tries to go around policing the rest of the world. I'd rather that I didn't have to pay for those things. Anytime you put the government in charge of something, they screw it up.

Also, you pay health insurance? Then you're already paying a de facto tax - and the money you spend goes into a big pot and is drawn out to pay for other people's health, because that is how insurance works.

Yes. That's how health insurance works when people contribute to the pot. But, what a socialized health care system entails is that people who don't contribute to the pot should get health care anyways. So, people who don't work and don't pay taxes should get free health care. I'm opposed to that.

Paul McEnery

10-30-2008, 07:49 PM

So, basically what you're saying is that even if someone doesn't have a job that they should get health insurance? I think it's immoral to force people to have to pay the medical bills of others.

I think it's unethical to stand by when a fellow human being is dying from something we can cure. But maybe that's just me.

But consider this: we do that anyway. Hospitals can't ethically deny someone life-saving treatment (or even health-saving treatment), so broke-ass ill people go to the emergency and get treatment for nothing anyway. More expensive treatment. Treatment for conditions that could have been treated for less money if they'd been caught earlier.

Oh, and I hate to tell you this, but anyone with health insurance is getting subsidized medicine. Insurance companies negotiate a discount for their customers. Anyone without insurance winds up being charged as much as four times the cost as the insured.

If you contribute to the tax system, then you have an argument for getting health care, but if you don't even pay taxes because you don't have a job then you cannot reasonably expect me to support your demand for free health care; and it would be free in your case because you wouldn't be paying any taxes.

So presumably, anyone who can't find a job should just rot in the gutter then, is that it?

Let me put it to you that we'd have a much less civil society if we didn't take care of the unemployed.

I don't see how that applies to your point. If anything, it proves that giving the government control over anything ends up making it worse; since such a huge bureaucracy is less efficient than if people handled things themselves.

It is a stone cold fact that you are wrong.

Countries with universal health care pay less for their healthcare, even while treating more people.

stealthwise

10-30-2008, 07:49 PM

Why the FUCK wouldn't you? A healthy population is one that can work more; pragmatically, it is in the national interest for the populace to be healthy.

That's why I never understood why more global efforts weren't made to help stave off the pandemic of AIDS in Africa. An entire continent that could be healthier, more productive, and more willing and able to import and export consumer goods could only lead to a healthier global economy.

Paul McEnery

10-30-2008, 07:50 PM

Yes. That's how health insurance works when people contribute to the pot. But, what a socialized health care system entails is that people who don't contribute to the pot should get health care anyways. So, people who don't work and don't pay taxes should get free health care. I'm opposed to that.

Don't take this personally, but I hope you lose your job and go down with a life-threatening illness.

You might learn something from the experience.

Berserk

10-30-2008, 07:56 PM

Don't take this personally, but I hope you lose your job and go down with a life-threatening illness.

You might learn something from the experience.

If it's a life threatening illness then I'd likely die even if I had health care. But, I have money saved up if just such a thing were to happen because I plan ahead. If I lose my job, I have money to live on and use for medical expenses while I look for another one. It's what responsible people do; people who don't plan ahead and then expect the government to take care of their needs don't get my sympathy.

stealthwise

10-30-2008, 08:01 PM

If it's a life threatening illness then I'd likely die even if I had health care.

You know what a stroke is, right? A heart attack? Hell, diabetes?

Berserk

10-30-2008, 08:02 PM

You know what a stroke is, right? A heart attack? Hell, diabetes?

Anyone can get treated at an American hospital if they have a stroke, regardless of whether they have health care or not. Emergency care is provided for everyone by law; even the illegal immigrants.

stealthwise

10-30-2008, 08:03 PM

Anyone can get treated at an American hospital if they have a stroke, regardless of whether they have health care or not. Emergency care is provided for everyone by law.

You... do realize that there are after-effects of a stroke that are going to be much more complicated and expensive to deal with than the average person without health care will be able to afford, right?

If you don't like this example, how about the diabetes one?

Paul McEnery

10-30-2008, 08:07 PM

If it's a life threatening illness then I'd likely die even if I had health care. But, I have money saved up if just such a thing were to happen because I plan ahead. If I lose my job, I have money to live on and use for medical expenses while I look for another one.

Oh no you don't. You clearly don't have any idea what life-threatening illnesses cost. Say, someone scratches your arm and you get a staph infection. Fifteen years ago, that would set you back 14 grand and change. I figure double that now. An accident, a heart attack, a treatable cancer -- all that can really set you back.

You have absolutely no idea how easy it is to become that person.

Paul McEnery

10-30-2008, 08:09 PM

Anyone can get treated at an American hospital if they have a stroke, regardless of whether they have health care or not. Emergency care is provided for everyone by law; even the illegal immigrants.

So, which way would you like to pay for it? The ridiculously expensive one that clogs emergency up so that people who need urgent care have to sit in unsanitary conditions for hours waiting for it, and excludes people who could have been treated preventatively and cheaply?

Or the cheaper and more efficient one?

Berserk

10-30-2008, 08:10 PM

Oh no you don't. You clearly don't have any idea what life-threatening illnesses cost. Say, someone scratches your arm and you get a staph infection. Fifteen years ago, that would set you back 14 grand and change. I figure double that now. An accident, a heart attack, a treatable cancer -- all that can really set you back.

You have absolutely no idea how easy it is to become that person.

Perhaps. I'm young healthy and have health insurance. Would things be more difficult on me if I didn't have insurance? Of course. But, that's why I got insurance.

Berserk

10-30-2008, 08:11 PM

So, which way would you like to pay for it? The ridiculously expensive one that clogs emergency up so that people who need urgent care have to sit in unsanitary conditions for hours waiting for it, and excludes people who could have been treated preventatively and cheaply?

Or the cheaper and more efficient one?

How can you say that socialized medicine is cheaper and more efficient. It's more expensive and less efficient. That's why countries with socialized medicine have on average longer lines and waiting lists for treatment and they have higher taxes in order to pay for all that "free" health care.

stealthwise

10-30-2008, 08:12 PM

Perhaps. I'm young healthy and have health insurance. Would things be more difficult on me if I didn't have insurance? Of course. But, that's why I got insurance.

Where DO you work, if you don't mind me asking? Do you get full coverage?

Evan Waters

10-30-2008, 08:24 PM

If it's a life threatening illness then I'd likely die even if I had health care. But, I have money saved up if just such a thing were to happen because I plan ahead. If I lose my job, I have money to live on and use for medical expenses while I look for another one. It's what responsible people do; people who don't plan ahead and then expect the government to take care of their needs don't get my sympathy.

What about people who don't make enough money to save up anything to start with?

Evan Waters

10-30-2008, 08:25 PM

Tobias March

10-30-2008, 08:29 PM

Indeed; this is why there are no rich people in Britain.

I'm telling ya...Socialist utopia. Someone should have said.

Nick Soapdish

10-30-2008, 08:30 PM

Yea, that seems right. So, 87% of Americans who make $50,000 or more have health insurance. I'm guessing most of them are covered through their employer rather than a private insurance plan. The most wealthy Americans are probably covered through private plans since they can get better health care that way.

Exactly. So those16 million above $50K a year didn't choose not to pick up their health insurance from their employer. For most of them, it wasn't offered.

And of the health care that's offered, sometimes, it's not that great.

OzBat!

10-30-2008, 08:32 PM

My interests don't always reflect national interests. Sure it's nice to have a nation of healthy and productive people, but that won't make me feel much better about the huge chunk of money that's being taken away from me in order to pay for it. At some point, we have to be responsible for ourselves. The government can't provide everything for us, nor should it. I don't want to live in a country where everything is "free" and like 90% of my income is stolen from me in order to pay for all of that "free" stuff.I'm pretty sure there were at least a couple of posts in this thread already, pointing out that Americans pay more per capita than most western nations with socialised healthcare. Wouldn't you like to pay a smaller chunk of money instead? That's how self interest normally works, isn't it? Seriously, this bowing at the altar of capitalism and vested drug company's interests has seriously warped quite a few people's logic circuits.

hichaec

10-30-2008, 08:35 PM

Perhaps. I'm young healthy and have health insurance. Would things be more difficult on me if I didn't have insurance? Of course. But, that's why I got insurance.

I don't know what you're trying to prove with this statement, but you come off as so offensively, willfully ignorant here I could just spit.

I am sure that anecdotal evidence means nothing to you, but have some anyway: when I was in junior high, my mother, after a routine trip to the dentist, contracted a violent staph infection that nearly killed her and permanently altered both her motor control and her mental capabilities. We had insurance and savings, and both my parents worked 50k+ jobs prior to her hospitalization.

This staph infection - and the care my mother required for years after the fact, plus the loss of her job - literally destroyed my family financially. My parents are still recovering from it.

I cannot even begin to imagine how much worse it would have been without the insurance, since even WITH that we ended up living off of TV dinners for almost two years. But at least we made it through with that much - at least we had a house to mortgage and a father who was willing to put in for so much overtime.

Lots of people who are responsible and hard-working honestly just don't have that much. I don't care if you throw statistics at me that say "most" Americans DO have enough, or that "most" Americans who don't just aren't trying hard enough, because even one percent of Americans is still MILLIONS of people.

So if even one percent of this country is working hard and doing everything right and saving and trying to get high enough on the job ladder to have insurance but gets kicked in the face before they get there, it's still too damn many for me. I really couldn't care less if helping them out means giving a "free ride" to countless others.

Charles RB

10-30-2008, 08:45 PM

Sure it's nice to have a nation of healthy and productive people, but that won't make me feel much better about the huge chunk of money that's being taken away from me in order to pay for it.

Does your job rely on co-workers or customers, or other companies with workers? If so, it is entirely in your interest for other people to be healthy and productive.

And again, you are having money taken from you to pay for other people's health care as part of any insurance scheme you have. The only way to avoid this is to literally pay for your own health care by yourself.

Yes, I'm paying for an education system that's broken and a huge military that tries to go around policing the rest of the world. I'd rather that I didn't have to pay for those things. Anytime you put the government in charge of something, they screw it up.

Flawed defence - do you or do you not have an issue with the inherent idea of paying for national defence and education.

Also, are you really advocating private education for the entire country and a privately owned military? Because that's the logical end point of what you're saying here.

Oh, and presumably a privatised police and fire service too, I'm guessing. (Best hope you're not poor and need a murder solved!)

But, what a socialized health care system entails is that people who don't contribute to the pot should get health care anyways

Children don't "contribute to the pot", y'know. Where do they fit in under this ideology of yours?

Also, if you are temporarily out of work and looking for it, being unable to get health coverage lessens your chance of getting to contribute to the pot again.

If it's a life threatening illness then I'd likely die even if I had health care

Incorrect - we can cure life-threatening illnesses, conditions and injuries, especially if they're caught in time.

Catching them may require a check-up though. People with little money may try to put that off if they have to pay for check-ups. This, of course, means more money may end up being spent on them when they do get treatment, so more money is lost in the long-term.

But, I have money saved up if just such a thing were to happen because I plan ahead. If I lose my job, I have money to live on and use for medical expenses while I look for another one

And what happens when you don't get that other job?

What happes when it turns out you need to pay a lot more than you thought, especially if it's a long-term issue?

What if the insurance company refuses to pay up and you're lumbered with thousands of dollars in debt, wiping out a big chunk/much/all of your vaunted savings?

What if the economy crashes and the dollar is devalued and your savings go down in value?

What if your bank goes under and those savings are lost, not an impossibly situation these days?

You will never be fully prepared for the worst, and things can go to shit very quickly. You are being extremely naive here.

Charles RB

10-30-2008, 08:48 PM

That's why I never understood why more global efforts weren't made to help stave off the pandemic of AIDS in Africa.

I figured it was because the African nations aren't us, and people will go "why is my money going to pay for foreigners who don't help themselves?". (They do over the government helping asylum seekers, for feck's sake)

Don't take this personally, but I hope you lose your job and go down with a life-threatening illness.

You might learn something from the experience.

I was waiting for someone who wasn't me to say that.

beetlebum

10-30-2008, 08:54 PM

Maybe if you'd get a job, you could afford health insurance. I'm not saying that health insurance will fall out of trees. Most Americans are insured through their job. Don't complain about not having health insurance if you don't have a job; that makes no sense. So, you'd prefer that the people who actually do work and are taxed pay for you to get free health insurance? Like I said before, you get what you pay for; if you don't pay anything at all then you should get nothing. It's simple.

And, for the people who are criticizing me about my views; that I don't know what I'm talking about, check out this video; it ought to clear up your misconceptions about the American health care system:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKCWbq18bNk

Good God; in addition to being ignorant, you're really quite smug (with no reason to be, either).

Don't tell me how to feel. FYI: I haven't been sitting on my arse the months I've been unemployed; I've been actively hunting for work, and most recently, I just sent in applications to both Macy's and the local municipality company. And I hate to tell you this, but even if you have a job that has benefits, the health insurance won't automatically kick in.

I had a job where I was insured, but I was forced to resign before I was allowed to partake of any of the benefits.

And I could have really used that insurance two years ago when I went through a period of several months where I was suffering from a nasty bout of bronchitis.

In fact, my coughing and weezing got so bad, that my mother had to go out and buy $80 worth of anti-biotics because I was keeping her up at night with my coughing. Do you know how much less we would have had to pay, had I been insured?

I'm not asking for the government to take over our health care system and make everything free. If they did, then our health care system would end up resembling our public school system, and that's the last thing we need....

Instead, I'm just asking for a health care system that not only gives people the option of opting for a private insurer, but subsidises coverage for those who cannot afford it, and eases the burden on people; something along the lines of MedicAid, except available to more Americans.

And, I really don't care if I come across as snarky here, but you should really, make the effort to inform yourself more. You come across as so damn ignorant in your posts, it's not even funny.

FalconX2000

10-30-2008, 09:03 PM

Singapore may not be the greatest country on Earth, but I challenge any nation to take it on pound for pound.:tongue:

beetlebum

10-30-2008, 09:11 PM

If the elderly weren't smart enough to save up money for their retirement then it's their fault if they don't end up getting health care coverage. That's the problem with socialism; it tries to bring everyone down to the least common denominator. If you aren't smart enough to realize that at one point you're going to get old and so you better prepare for that time, then you shouldn't get a dime of my or other taxpayers money other than social security. The disabled and mentally ill are a different matter; I don't mind my tax dollars going towards them, since I can't expect them to hold to the same standards as fully capable people.

Sweet Jesus, it's Herbert Hoover reincarnated.

*shakes head in disgust*

Cam63

10-30-2008, 09:31 PM

Corrina

10-30-2008, 09:44 PM

Do you have $20,000 saved for a hospital stay, Berserk?

Another $5,000 for medications?

Another $5,000 for specialist care?

Get diagnosed with a growth, and that's the bill you'll rack up. In two weeks. Then there's follow-up care.

And I'm lowballing the estimates. Want to take a look at the medical bills for my mother who had surgery recently for a growth in her liver that could have been cancer? Let's just save the first number starts with five and it's five digits long.

But she has health insurance, thank God. She could afford to go to the best doctors. If you don't have $50,000-$100,000 saved for a series illness and you don't have medical insurance you are screwed, my friend. And even if you do, those deductibles can easily add up to $5,000 or more. Unless you're making $200,000 per year, there's just no way you can save up for medical bills for a serious illness.

So, I hope your savings account is looking rather fat. Or else you better not get cancer. Or be in a car accident. Or any other random event that affects your health which is uncontrollable.

*My mother is going to be fine, btw.

Cam63

10-30-2008, 09:46 PM

My respects to your mum, Corrina.

Berserk

10-30-2008, 10:27 PM

Good God; in addition to being ignorant, you're really quite smug (with no reason to be, either).

Don't tell me how to feel. FYI: I haven't been sitting on my arse the months I've been unemployed; I've been actively hunting for work, and most recently, I just sent in applications to both Macy's and the local municipality company. And I hate to tell you this, but even if you have a job that has benefits, the health insurance won't automatically kick in.

I had a job where I was insured, but I was forced to resign before I was allowed to partake of any of the benefits.

And I could have really used that insurance two years ago when I went through a period of several months where I was suffering from a nasty bout of bronchitis.

In fact, my coughing and weezing got so bad, that my mother had to go out and buy $80 worth of anti-biotics because I was keeping her up at night with my coughing. Do you know how much less we would have had to pay, had I been insured?

I'm not asking for the government to take over our health care system and make everything free. If they did, then our health care system would end up resembling our public school system, and that's the last thing we need....

Instead, I'm just asking for a health care system that not only gives people the option of opting for a private insurer, but subsidises coverage for those who cannot afford it, and eases the burden on people; something along the lines of MedicAid, except available to more Americans.

And, I really don't care if I come across as snarky here, but you should really, make the effort to inform yourself more. You come across as so damn ignorant in your posts, it's not even funny.

The problem with your suggestion is that it puts a burden on the tax payers. Bush during his term signed the prescription drug act, which dramatically increased federal spending and the national debt since we were already overstretched with social security, medicaid, and medicare. In fact, right now we're living on debt; a huge amount of debt. What the government is scared to tell Americans, but which they'll have to do sooner or later, is that we cannot afford to keep up all these social programs, especially social security. The system only worked so long as there were enough workers paying into it; but now with the massive amounts of baby boomers who will be retiring over the next 10 years, it will put a huge burden on the system since there won't be enough workers replacing them to support the gigantic demand that they'll put on the social security system. That's why Bush tried to privatize social security; he saw this coming and thought that privatizing social security would be an easy way to get this burden off the government. I don't see how we can deal with this issue without dramatically raising taxes, and the people won't take too kindly to that, not to mention also all of the businesses and wealthy people that would end up chasing away to countries with lower tax rates.

Evan Waters

10-30-2008, 10:47 PM

Look, it's a burden either way. Either it's on the taxpayers or it's on the poor.

Who do you think can shoulder it better?

Nick Soapdish

10-30-2008, 10:54 PM

The problem with your suggestion is that it puts a burden on the tax payers. Bush during his term signed the prescription drug act, which dramatically increased federal spending and the national debt since we were already overstretched with social security, medicaid, and medicare. In fact, right now we're living on debt; a huge amount of debt. What the government is scared to tell Americans, but which they'll have to do sooner or later, is that we cannot afford to keep up all these social programs, especially social security. The system only worked so long as there were enough workers paying into it; but now with the massive amounts of baby boomers who will be retiring over the next 10 years, it will put a huge burden on the system since there won't be enough workers replacing them to support the gigantic demand that they'll put on the social security system. That's why Bush tried to privatize social security; he saw this coming and thought that privatizing social security would be an easy way to get this burden off the government. I don't see how we can deal with this issue without dramatically raising taxes, and the people won't take too kindly to that, not to mention also all of the businesses and wealthy people that would end up chasing away to countries with lower tax rates.

The prescription drug act is mostly a giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies. It doesn't help most of the people that need prescriptions. It's not holding down the costs. It's just giving it straight to the pharmaceuticals.

And the problem with Social Security isn't over the next ten years. It's a bit further in the future. There's still a problem, but moving all the money into private accounts immediately raises the problem of where we're going to get the money to pay the current benefits. And that's not taking into account who really wanted privatized social security - the investment bankers - since it would give them more capital to play with.

But there are a few risks with that.

And yes, increased health insurance (Obama doesn't actually promise universal health insurance) funded through government does put a burden on citizens. So does every other government enterprise. Including simply making people go into the doctor only when their problems have to be taken care of in the emergency room and thus eating that bill. Or having an unhealthy workforce because it cuts back on production and thus the income that the government can receive otherwise.

Berserk

10-30-2008, 11:05 PM

The prescription drug act is mostly a giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies. It doesn't help most of the people that need prescriptions. It's not holding down the costs. It's just giving it straight to the pharmaceuticals.

And the problem with Social Security isn't over the next ten years. It's a bit further in the future. There's still a problem, but moving all the money into private accounts immediately raises the problem of where we're going to get the money to pay the current benefits. And that's not taking into account who really wanted privatized social security - the investment bankers - since it would give them more capital to play with.

But there are a few risks with that.

And yes, increased health insurance (Obama doesn't actually promise universal health insurance) funded through government does put a burden on citizens. So does every other government enterprise. Including simply making people go into the doctor only when their problems have to be taken care of in the emergency room and thus eating that bill. Or having an unhealthy workforce because it cuts back on production and thus the income that the government can receive otherwise.

If the government could figure out a way to subsidize health care for everyone without raising taxes, then I would be all for it. In fact, I would love it if the government stopped spending so much on the military and on aid to foreign countries. We're spending 10 billion a month in Iraq. In total, we've spent a trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11. That money could have gone a long way towards universal health care. So, if that were the case, I would have no problems with it. But, I don't see how we can have universal health care while still policing the rest of the world. As long as America remains the super power of this world, then our politicians will see it as their moral responsibility to police the world.

stealthwise

10-30-2008, 11:10 PM

If the government could figure out a way to subsidize health care for everyone without raising taxes, then I would be all for it. In fact, I would love it if the government stopped spending so much on the military and on aid to foreign countries. We're spending 10 billion a month in Iraq. In total, we've spent a trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11. That money could have gone a long way towards universal health care. So, if that were the case, I would have no problems with it. But, I don't see how we can have universal health care while still policing the rest of the world. As long as America remains the super power of this world, then our politicians will see it as their moral responsibility to police the world.

Well, the answer is obvious: get the fuck out of Iraq.

Nick Soapdish

10-30-2008, 11:16 PM

Look, it's a burden either way. Either it's on the taxpayers or it's on the poor.

Who do you think can shoulder it better?

The taxpayers pay for it in both instances. Having no health insurance due to a poor job can result in chronic conditions that leave the worker unable to work and put them on welfare. And keeping the poor poor raises the misery and desperation indexes which raises the crime rate.

If the government could figure out a way to subsidize health care for everyone without raising taxes, then I would be all for it. In fact, I would love it if the government stopped spending so much on the military and on aid to foreign countries. We're spending 10 billion a month in Iraq. In total, we've spent a trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11. That money could have gone a long way towards universal health care. So, if that were the case, I would have no problems with it. But, I don't see how we can have universal health care while still policing the rest of the world. As long as America remains the super power of this world, then our politicians will see it as their moral responsibility to police the world.

Coincidentally, Obama has cited Iraq as a source of how he's going to pay for the expansion of health care. As well as rolling back the Bush tax cuts on those making over $250,000. It's not going to pay for it all though. I'm hoping that he is able to make good on his pledge to cut other waste in government to balance the books, but I'm not too optimistic about it.

As to your last point ...
We aren't the superpower of the world. If we've learned anything from Iraq in the last 5 years, you'd think we would've figured that out. We have to learn to go back to diplomatic solutions and having allies.

Cam63

10-30-2008, 11:19 PM

As to your last point ...
We aren't the superpower of the world. If we've learned anything from Iraq in the last 5 years, you'd think we would've figured that out. We have to learn to go back to diplomatic solutions and having allies.

Fuckin' yeah !

Tommy

10-30-2008, 11:23 PM

Wait... if we were the world's police man... wouldn't we be doing something about those human rights violations in nations that it isn't in our strategic or economic interests to attack?

We aren't the superpower of the world. If we've learned anything from Iraq in the last 5 years, you'd think we would've figured that out. We have to learn to go back to diplomatic solutions and having allies.

Oh hell yes. America rolled over and showed just how weak not only our military-industrial complex is, but how tenuous our economic power is. At this point we should just all start learning Mandarin.

Berserk

10-31-2008, 12:04 AM

Wait... if we were the world's police man... wouldn't we be doing something about those human rights violations in nations that it isn't in our strategic or economic interests to attack?

Oh hell yes. America rolled over and showed just how weak not only our military-industrial complex is, but how tenuous our economic power is. At this point we should just all start learning Mandarin.

America's been following the same path that all other great empires and nations have followed which have led to their demise. The Roman empire was going good as well until a few idiotic emperors bankrupted it. Bush is our idiot who heralded the end of American dominance. I see our power steadily declining over the next 10 years until we're no longer capable of bullying other nations like we've been doing. I think that's a good thing though; I'd rather have a weak America that focuses on internal problems rather than a strong America that's only concerned with policing the world.

Buzz Dixon

10-31-2008, 12:40 AM

If the elderly weren't smart enough to save up money for their retirement then it's their fault if they don't end up getting health care coverage.My elderly aunt spent most of her adult life looking after my grandmother, who died 10 years ago at age 101. My aunt is in her early 80s and until a few years ago worked at a candy store to make extra money. Because of my grandmother's health concerns, she went through what savings they had.

Saying this as politely as I can, I don't care for your opinion.

Berserk

10-31-2008, 12:46 AM

My elderly aunt spent most of her adult life looking after my grandmother, who died 10 years ago at age 101. My aunt is in her early 80s and until a few years ago worked at a candy store to make extra money. Because of my grandmother's health concerns, she went through what savings they had.

Saying this as politely as I can, I don't care for your opinion.

It seems that most people on this thread don't agree with me; or worse yet, no one does. Oh well; I guess I'm outnumbered. I understand why though; since my position isn't very sympathetic to those who are uninsured. It's not that I don't want those people to be uninsured; I just don't think that it's fair to other people who can afford their own insurance to have to pay for others to get it.

Lester C.

10-31-2008, 12:54 AM

Corrina

10-31-2008, 05:46 AM

It seems that most people on this thread don't agree with me; or worse yet, no one does. Oh well; I guess I'm outnumbered. I understand why though; since my position isn't very sympathetic to those who are uninsured. It's not that I don't want those people to be uninsured; I just don't think that it's fair to other people who can afford their own insurance to have to pay for others to get it.

No, it's because you're ill-informed is why.

The health care insurance is broken. It's impossible to save enough to cover health care costs. We pay more for health care on average per person in this country than countries that have a tax-based health care system--socialized medicine as they say.

I pay $13,000 in health care premiums for a family. I'd happily pay that to taxes if I could get a system without loopholes & pre-existing conditions, deductibles for out-of-network doctors, etc.

Now, that's NOT what Obama is proposing. He's proposing that the gov't get involved in regulating some of these 'exceptions' and in setting up a system for the uninsured to purchase health care at a reasonable cost--and to drive down costs by getting more people into the system. Preventative care saves lives but, most importantly for taxes, it saves money. Part of the soaring costs is due to critical care at teh last minute by the uninsured.

If you want people to have some respect for your position, go do your homework.

beetlebum

10-31-2008, 06:16 AM

The problem with your suggestion is that it puts a burden on the tax payers.

The more you speak, the more you demonstrate just how ignorant you are.

How Obama and McCain's health care plans stack up against each other. (http://www.freep.com/article/20081029/NEWS15/810290351)

The point is, in order to offset the mess we've created over the past couple of years, progressive taxation will have to be implemented.

"Fiscal conservatives" like Eisenhower understood this. During his administration, Ike raised the gasoline tax in order to build our interstate highway system. He also raised taxes to pay for the care of wounded war veterans.

He temporarily raised taxes in 1954, but later went on to repeal the them. As a result of those temporary increases (and later decreases), he went on to have a total of 160.9% economic gain during his administration.

Reagan is responsible for implementing most of the FITC's that most poor people benefit from (he signed the Earned Income Credit into law in 1986) but faced with looming deficits, Reagan raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984.

Not to mention the fact that he also expanded Social Security, even going as far as advocating a $165 billion bailout for it.

So while I do worry about too many excise taxes, because - as I argued in another thread, too many excise taxes end up placing a disproportionate burden on the poor - the point is, if people who don't even like raising taxes understand that sometimes you will have to do so in order to offset an economic mess, why can't you comprehend it?

Governor Schwarzenegger has had to learn the hard way that you can't have your cake and eat it too, and that's demonstrated by the fact that California is currently in the midst of a "budget crisis", and we may need the federal government to bail us out.

Bush during his term signed the prescription drug act, which dramatically increased federal spending and the national debt since we were already overstretched with social security, medicaid, and medicare.

Nick already pointed out some of the problems with the Prescription Drug Act.

The plan has many flaws. Because the plan has a complicated formula for coverage (based on how much a senior spends on drugs each year), advocates worry that seniors will be confused and may choose to join the plan although it makes little economic sense for them.

They also believe the government could have done more to bring down drug prices by giving the federal government the power to bargain with drug companies, much as they do with drugs for veterans. Then there are those who think the act just costs too much: $27 billion in 2006 and growing to $65 billion in 2013 - for a total of $395 billion over 10 years.

The whole entire thing was implemented in response to Americans who crossed over the border into Canada in order to get cheaper drugs. Rather than negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies to lower prices, they implemented this. Can you blame them? After all, why would you stand up to a powerful entity that has a lot of people who reside on The Beltway in their back pocket.

In fact, right now we're living on debt; a huge amount of debt. What the government is scared to tell Americans, but which they'll have to do sooner or later, is that we cannot afford to keep up all these social programs, especially social security. The system only worked so long as there were enough workers paying into it; but now with the massive amounts of baby boomers who will be retiring over the next 10 years, it will put a huge burden on the system since there won't be enough workers replacing them to support the gigantic demand that they'll put on the social security system. That's why Bush tried to privatize social security; he saw this coming and thought that privatizing social security would be an easy way to get this burden off the government. I don't see how we can deal with this issue without dramatically raising taxes, and the people won't take too kindly to that, not to mention also all of the businesses and wealthy people that would end up chasing away to countries with lower tax rates.

*Takes a deep breath*

WE HAVE ALL OF THIS DEBT BECAUSE WE ARE LIVING WELL BEYOND OUR MEANS, AND THAT IS MOSTLY SPURNED ON BY THE DEBACLE THAT IS THE "WAR ON TERROR!!11"

We've spent over $527 billion spent on the "War On Terror" since 2001, and if you can't comprehend that the said "war", along with clumsily implemented programmes like the Prescription Drug Act are responsible for our current deficit, then there's not much I can do to help you.

It seems that most people on this thread don't agree with me; or worse yet, no one does. Oh well; I guess I'm outnumbered. I understand why though; since my position isn't very sympathetic to those who are uninsured. It's not that I don't want those people to be uninsured; I just don't think that it's fair to other people who can afford their own insurance to have to pay for others to get it.

The reason why most people don't agree with you is because you are a smug, glib, willfully ignorant soul who - instead of focusing on what is being said to him - chooses to reiterate his own tautologies.

In short, you come across as being very inconsiderate. And the people in this thread are more than a bit frustrated because, for years, the line of thinking that you espouse here is why America (needlessly) spends 40% more than most other nations in the industrialised world, and why people who can't afford it, cannot get insurance.

EDIT: I apologise if I was overtly snarky to you, Beserk. Sometimes my temper can get the best of me...:redface:

Yeah, Beetlebum, you dirty fucking hippie. Just get a fucking job and you'll be set.

USA! USA! USA!

On another note, Larime is one of the few people here that I like enough to let them call me a "dirty hippie". :biggrin:

Had it been someone else.....:evilsmile: