Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i find it peculiar that you lump "healthcare" in with "luxuries". i think that's where the far-right mentality differs from mine. healthcare is like education, it should not be entirely market-driven.
I said nothing about "luxuries".
You should be required to work... Or you don't even eat.
Kilmeade and two colleagues were discussing a study that, based on research done in Finland and Sweden, showed people who stay married are less likely to suffer from Alzheimer’s. Kilmeade questioned the results, though, saying, “We are — we keep marrying other species and other ethnics and other …”
At this point, his co-host tried to — in that jokey morning show way — tell Kilmeade he needed to shut up, and quick, for his own sake. But he didn’t get the message, adding, “See, the problem is the Swedes have pure genes. Because they marry other Swedes …. Finns marry other Finns, so they have a pure society.”
As I accurately predicted, the RWNJs are coming in full force on here denying my claim. Then, RWNJs, why make the claim about homogenous populations in the first place in practically EVERY topic that deals with the welfare state and single payer and socialized healthcare? Answer me that. If it was a strawman, or an illusion I came up with; is it just me that I keep seeing this buzzword crop up so often? I don't think so!
Sour, you are so far to the right that anyone that is considered a centrist or moderate in every country in the world is a loony lib to you. Those are the facts. My political views are very moderate in the entire developed world. By Canadian and European standards, I'm actually center-right. But, leave it to you, a RWNJ, to say anyone to the left of you is a leftnut
In the case of the Vermont single payer thread I made that claim and backed it up with census figures.
Plenty of studies are out there showing homogenous societies are better off than heterogenous ones.
Diversity does not promote agreement and unity except in word only.
Reality shows that diversity promotes divide and polarization of groups.
In the case of the Vermont single payer thread I made that claim and backed it up with census figures.
Plenty of studies are out there showing homogenous societies are better off than heterogenous ones.
Diversity does not promote agreement and unity except in word only.
Reality shows that diversity promotes divide and polarization of groups.
In NO case is race or ethnic history a factor. In all cases, it has to do with the culture and its virtues and / or lack of them.
There are many monoculture nations that do very badly, and much of the blame can be placed directly on the culture and its qualities.
1) When you have a country like, say, Finland: small population, everyone essentially "the same" it's easier to build communities based on shared identity, and convince people that the common good is actually in your favor as well. When it feels like you're paying for everyone else, and especially people who resent you or flat out hate you or are diametrically opposed to you in multiple ways, it is harder to craft social welfare programs that work.
I think this is harder in larger diverse nations, where you have to overlay an artificial shared identity (American, for example). Luckily, even the US we have some good programs despite our diversity that everyone (well, mostly) seem to be in favor of, such as Medicare, Social Security, etc.
2) In the case of the US - and other similar nations - immigration can really affect the welfare state where you're trying to provide not only for the poor of your own country, but the poor of other countries almost literally sending their poor and unwanted to the United States to be taken care of by the US welfare system. At that point, you compound issue #1 and people resent programs that seem to benefit "the other" rather than "the country." Britain has a lot of similar issues these days. Good for them the NHS was introduced decades ago, and not proposed today.
I am not entirely convinced you can sustain mass waves of third world immigration AND have a long term, solvent and functioning welfare state.
This has been promoted to talking point, it seems like. According to just about every conservative on this forum, the welfare state and government run and/or funded healthcare works in northern Europe (includes all countries north of Spain, Italy, etc. and west of Poland) because of "homogenous populations" (of white people). What the hell does that mean? What does that even have to do with anything? But, of course, I see it being touted almost everywhere by the Right. Saw it just now in the topic of Vermont going single payer. It would work there because it has a "homogenous population" (of 94% white people). They may say homogenous population and can mean a country like China, which has a homogenous population, South Korea, Japan (the classic example); but no. Homogenous is 99% used in the context of white people. Which, I've come to the conclusion that homogenous population is codeword for more than 90% white.
So, why do right-wingers make the insinuation that if something works or is going to work well, it will only be thanks to white people? I just KNOW that the right-wingers will come in here and say I'm wrong and deny my claim, then why bother making the claim in the first place and keep hammering away at it? This isn't a one time incident, this is in almost every topic that concerns healthcare and the welfare state. In other words, this is not an accident
The OP's fundamental error is not appreciating what homogeneous means. It does not mean mostly white. It means mostly the same.
In the case of the Nordic countries most of the people happen to be white. But that isn't as meaningful on public policy issues as the fact that these people have similar backgrounds and outlook on life. Their culture is homogeneous. Most of the population in Norway is Norwegians.
I don't think conservatives are obsessed with homogeneous at all.
This has been promoted to talking point, it seems like. According to just about every conservative on this forum, the welfare state and government run and/or funded healthcare works in northern Europe (includes all countries north of Spain, Italy, etc. and west of Poland) because of "homogenous populations" (of white people). What the hell does that mean? What does that even have to do with anything? But, of course, I see it being touted almost everywhere by the Right. Saw it just now in the topic of Vermont going single payer. It would work there because it has a "homogenous population" (of 94% white people). They may say homogenous population and can mean a country like China, which has a homogenous population, South Korea, Japan (the classic example); but no. Homogenous is 99% used in the context of white people. Which, I've come to the conclusion that homogenous population is codeword for more than 90% white.
So, why do right-wingers make the insinuation that if something works or is going to work well, it will only be thanks to white people? I just KNOW that the right-wingers will come in here and say I'm wrong and deny my claim, then why bother making the claim in the first place and keep hammering away at it? This isn't a one time incident, this is in almost every topic that concerns healthcare and the welfare state. In other words, this is not an accident
You might want to look at many of those countries your talking about. its not working I many and they like US but to greater degree have pawned their future in borrowing to pay .Too many cannot be dependent o too few; doesn't work.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
