Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-15-2016, 01:13 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,029 posts, read 44,853,831 times
Reputation: 13715

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
WTF are YOU talking about?

That "inferior housing" thingy used three markers of identification only. Money needed to sustain the house, number of rooms per person inhabiting, and access to an indoor flush toilet. the latter two are the only items to consider at all.
Exactly. It takes more money to sustain housing that doesn't stack multiple occupancy in each room.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-15-2016, 01:26 PM
 
4,798 posts, read 3,510,561 times
Reputation: 2301
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
Ooopsy.....Counting the Uncountable: Overseas Americans | migrationpolicy.org

Plenty of folks emigrate to Europe, even Americans.

Let's ask another question: why is it, you suppose that America can track a cow born in a stall in Mexico Argentina or Canada to it's ultimate location on a dinner plate in Las Vegas but seems reluctant to divulge or even attempt to ascertain exactly how many of it's citizens live overseas and exactly where they're living?

Could it be the resulting embarrassment would be more than some could bear?
Americans are accounted for, as they need to check in with embassy yearly, as many expats do. I dont know how embarrassing that would be to know we have people living abroad.
I would think more would go to Asia, to get submissive wives etc. Makes life very nice and cheap for many.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2016, 01:34 PM
 
22,923 posts, read 15,497,191 times
Reputation: 16962
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Exactly. It takes more money to sustain housing that doesn't stack multiple occupancy in each room.
Of course it would and the study would have shown that particularity had there been even one country in the study showing multiple persons per room instead of vice-versa.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2016, 01:43 PM
 
22,923 posts, read 15,497,191 times
Reputation: 16962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve40th View Post
Americans are accounted for, as they need to check in with embassy yearly, as many expats do. I dont know how embarrassing that would be to know we have people living abroad.
I would think more would go to Asia, to get submissive wives etc. Makes life very nice and cheap for many.
Except that those figures aren't available and even the state department cannot accurately collate them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_diaspora

There's a reason why no tabulating of those reportees is taking place. "Why" would be interesting.

It might be embarrassing to find that a couple of million or more Americans find Europe attractive for it's lifestyle including healthcare.

And your last sentence ........Too true, too true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2016, 02:30 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
18,504 posts, read 15,560,052 times
Reputation: 11937
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
WTF are you talking about? It's plain as day that Europeans and Scandinavians have less disposable income than Americans and live in inferior housing.

They have to make do with less, and they have inferior living accommodations.
From a non-American perspective. Extra money isn't everything. Inferior housing in Canada and western Europe? LOL. The parameters as I mentioned are silly. My life isn't better because I have three toilets over someone who may have only two.

People who live in countries that have universal care, and perhaps pay more in taxes ( although this is exaggerated when it comes to Canada at least ) are happier and have a better QOL overall.

Having not to worry about finances when it comes to care is liberating and the difference of more disposable income, can quickly disappear and be meaningless for people paying big for insurance and all the things not covered by insurance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2016, 04:37 PM
 
18,802 posts, read 8,474,425 times
Reputation: 4130
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanAdventurer View Post
I tend to agree it will happen at some point but it might be 20-30 years from now when the Millennials are the dominant voice in American politics. Then will be the time. Not going to happen on the Baby Boomer's watch and probably not Gen X's either.

It will look something more like France or Germany's single payer system. Basically allow everybody to sign up for Medicare part "B" and pay the monthly premium just like you would to a private insurance company. Of course the private insurance companies will be the largest roadblock to getting this done. They know their goose is cooked if citizens are ever allowed to buy health insurance direct from Uncle Sam. They wont be able to continue their fleecing of John Q Public by charging them 3 times what it really should cost if that ever happened, so of course they will do everything in their power to prevent it.
It could be closer to a public option with the privates still in business. Or it could be like the Swiss where even the elderly get private but heavily controlled HC plans.

The big thing is that we should all want the bulk of the HC delivery to remain within the private sector. We do not want something like a national sized VA. We want the docs and most hospitals to have the patients as their prime concern, and not be overly controlled by Gov't. Medicare is this way now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2016, 10:17 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,831 posts, read 24,347,720 times
Reputation: 32954
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanAdventurer View Post
No, Medicare is not free. They pay like $104 a month for it. Sounds reasonable. I pay $325 a month for a crappy Obamacare plan and I'm young and healthy. Total scam.
No, you pay $325 a month for a crappy insurance company plan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2016, 12:22 AM
 
1,147 posts, read 718,489 times
Reputation: 750
Isn't income distribution a massive issue in the United States? If so, then I'd be interested to know how much of their high average disposable income is skewed by people in the top quantile.

It seems strange to me that American families aren't doing all that well, despite all that "wealth".

Quote:
  • In an analysis of 38 countries, the U.S. scored well above the OECD average with its child income poverty rate, placing seventh, just behind Bulgaria and Romania – two Eastern European countries (OECD 2012; 2015, p. 2).
  • In an analysis of 174 countries, the U.S. was #33 on the 2015 'Mothers' Index Rank', placing 14 places bellow the average of #19 for all industrialised countries (Save the Children 2015, p. 14).
  • According to the 'Family Life Index 2015', the U.S. does not rank within the Top 10 for availability, cost and quality of childcare education, nor does it for family well-being and overall family life (InterNations 2015).

Last edited by Fish & Chips; 04-16-2016 at 12:30 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2016, 12:31 AM
 
1,147 posts, read 718,489 times
Reputation: 750
Isn't income distribution a massive issue in the United States? If so, then I'd be interested to know how much of their high average disposable income is skewed by people in the top quantile.

It seems strange to me that American families aren't doing all that well, despite all that "wealth".

Quote:
  • In an analysis of 38 countries, the U.S. scored well above the OECD average with its child income poverty rate, placing seventh – just behind Bulgaria and Romania – two Eastern European countries (OECD 2012; 2015, p. 2).
  • In an analysis of 174 countries, the U.S. was #33 on the 2015 'Mothers' Index Rank', placing 14 places bellow the average of #19 for all industrialised countries (Save the Children 2015, p. 14).
  • According to the 'Family Life Index 2015', the U.S. does not rank within the Top 10 for availability, cost and quality of childcare and education, nor does it for family well-being and overall family life (InterNations 2015).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:28 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top