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 was thinking more in terms of their excellent ground transportation system that whisks people to all corners of that beautiful country at up to 186 mph. My point is, Americans use the term "socialist" in the same vein as "communist", yet this just shows ignorance because the countries with the highest standards of living are socialist, which happens to make them real nice places for tourists too. I wouldn't want to live in France either but I sure would like the US to adopt many of that country's advantages. I have no issue with the US being labeled "socialist" someday.
I was thinking more in terms of their excellent ground transportation system that whisks people to all corners of that beautiful country at up to 186 mph. My point is, Americans use the term "socialist" in the same vein as "communist", yet this just shows ignorance because the countries with the highest standards of living are socialist, which happens to make them real nice places for tourists too. I wouldn't want to live in France either but I sure would like the US to adopt many of that country's advantages. I have no issue with the US being labeled "socialist" someday.
Really? Highest standards of living? Those countries also lack a true freedom of speech. Their health care system is also woefully lacking in terms of quality (not % coverage). Do you know that in France the medical industry practically goes on a 4 week vacation in the summer? Do you recall several years ago when the elderly were dropping like flied as a result of that medical hiatus? Do you understand that socialized medicine actually means that the government will ration the number of critical heart surgeries that it can pay for in a given year, and some bureaucrat inside the government will decide whether a 60 year old man or the 40 year old man is the one to benefit? Do you want to live in that society? What are the great successes of government that have led you to be so eager in giving more of your freedoms away?
It's very easy to be a small Scandinavian country and live in socialist bliss. See the United States has burdens that no other country has. It has a defense burden to cover the behind of all these socialist European nations, because these countries have put all their defense spending into these supposedly Utopian programs, leaving us to clean up one after another mess in their back yard (just look at what went on in the 90's).
Maybe you can also explain why if all these other socialist countries have the highest standard of living (meaning a better standard than ours in America) why is it that every downtrodden person on earth is still trying to float their way on a raft over to the US of A?
The answer is that the USA, despite all its flaws, is the only true free place on earth. That freedom is threatened by Utopian visions, which requires putting more and more power into the hands of a central planning government. It is really just amazing that nobody reads up on our history to understand that the founders of this nation did everything they could to prevent exactly the kind of government system that you seem to be embracing.
I hope America remains a place that is free for people to pursue their own successes, and not a place that guarantees a cradle to the grave warranty, as seems to be the current goal in Washington and amongst the liberals in this great country.
To keep this on topic, the best stimulus for the real-estate market would be for the government to cut its wasteful spending, reduce the income and capital gains taxes on *everyone* in this country and get out of the way of the hard working American citizen so that they can achieve their own destiny.
No, you are looking at a single instance...that of the person unwilling to get a job where he draws benefits or works at a job that doesn't pay enough to cover insurance premiums. But some of us are unable to get insurance at any price. Some of us have had cancer. Applications denied. Some of us have had strokes. Applications denied. Some of us have had heart attacks, phlebitis, need glasses, have diabetes, have prostate problems, have all kinds of ailments that prevents us from getting insurance. While we are at it, lets discuss the former executive who had to take a $12.00 an hour job just to cover their mortgage, and cobre is $1200 a month. Lets make sure the potentially working man is unable to get the help he needs when he is fighting depression because he can't support his family. None of them deserve insurance, after all the only ones without it are just lazy and incapable of meeting the needs of their families. Lets just put everyone on a diet and they will all become healthy. Obviously Lance Armstrong got testicular cancer because he was over weight, didn't he? that will cure all the ills........just let them eat healthy, right?
You just made a great argument for working to reduce the costs of healthcare, and one way you do that is you stop the government subsidy of medical lawsuits. What government subsidy of lawsuits? I mean the one that is in place by the entire Democrat party. None of what you're saying is a strong argument for giving the power to our government to run our healthcare system, and let's face it, that is exactly where this thing is headed. You think 100% coverage is the holy grail?
What good is 100% of garbage quality rationed coverage, with a medical industry that will no longer attract the brightest minds in our country. You think the cracker jack smartie pants out of high school are going to get themselves in to several hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt going to medical school so that they can graduate and work for the U.S. government? Get ready for a major dissapointment. This is America, people work hard to get ahead, and people who go into medicine are also driven by the financial reward they get for giving up most of their youth and almost every waking minute of their life, not to mention the responsibility they have when they treat umpteen thousand people over the course of their career.
So no, I don't think people with bad medical luck should be hung out to dry. But the solution to the problem is not to create a boondogle of medical ineptitude. Gracious me, just look north to Canada where pregnent women are being turned away from maternity wards, or cancer patients are told that they can't have an expensive screening done because statistically they are not elligible for a few more months, and they should wait until then to find out if they are afflicted with a worsening condition.
That is where we're headed. Is that what you want?
Really? Highest standards of living? Those countries also lack a true freedom of speech. Their health care system is also woefully lacking in terms of quality (not % coverage). Do you know that in France the medical industry practically goes on a 4 week vacation in the summer? Do you recall several years ago when the elderly were dropping like flied as a result of that medical hiatus?
They do not lack freedom of speech. Those problems pale in comparison to our systems' problems. In our system, you can have primo insurance and still get bankrupted by a medical issue. I'd rather have a system where an extra 100 people a year die, to save 10,000 from bankruptcy. The heat wave problem has been addressed with better policy, just like New Orleans has a better evacuation plan.
Quote:
Do you understand that socialized medicine actually means that the government will ration the number of critical heart surgeries that it can pay for in a given year, and some bureaucrat inside the government will decide whether a 60 year old man or the 40 year old man is the one to benefit?
That's great. Health care should certainly be rationed, that's way better than me paying for 10 other people who didn't pay because they didn't have insurance.
Quote:
Do you want to live in that society?
Absolutely.
Quote:
What are the great successes of government that have led you to be so eager in giving more of your freedoms away?
They have more freedom. They are free to not be bankrupted by medical issues.
Quote:
See the United States has burdens that no other country has. It has a defense burden to cover the behind of all these socialist European nations, because these countries have put all their defense spending into these supposedly Utopian programs, leaving us to clean up one after another mess in their back yard (just look at what went on in the 90's).
If only the US was defending anything, you'd have a point. We're the ones starting the wars, not ending them.
Quote:
Maybe you can also explain why if all these other socialist countries have the highest standard of living (meaning a better standard than ours in America) why is it that every downtrodden person on earth is still trying to float their way on a raft over to the US of A?
The question is based on a falsehood. The downtrodden prefer European countries. Why wouldn't they? Latin Americans come to the US because there's an ocean between them and Europe.
I'd rather have a system where an extra 100 people a year die, to save 10,000 from bankruptcy.
That's a rather sick admission on your part. What if one of those 100 people is someone you know, or worse, it's you? Not that it should matter. In America we should value every life as precious and seek means to reduce the country's problems that result in the slow medical death of our countrymen. And why do you assume it would be a 100/10,000 ratio? How do you know? The answer is you don't know. Here let me help you understand:
And there are hundreds more examples where this came from. Go speak to people in the UK and Canada. These people are trying to come here to save their lives and they are just as frightened as the rest of us that socializing U.S. medicine will send thousands more to their deaths.
That's great. Health care should certainly be rationed, that's way better than me paying for 10 other people who didn't pay because they didn't have insurance.
Maybe you should consider solutions that don't require limiting the health care that people get. As I mentioned there are a number of ways to cut down on costs. What you're asking for is to tear down the greatness of our country. What you're saying reads right out of the text books of a Marxist.
Quote:
They have more freedom. They are free to not be bankrupted by medical issues.
They have less freedom. Freedom isn't a guarantee of a perfect life. It's the absence of a greater statist power that constantly interferes with your life and dictates how how you should live. You apparently have no understanding of the situations that led to this country's founding. What you're discribing isn't freedom, it's soft tyrrany. It is un-American.
Quote:
If only the US was defending anything, you'd have a point. We're the ones starting the wars, not ending them.
So we were responsible for starting both World Wars in Europe during first half of the 20th century? How about the Gulf War? Did we start that one too? Or the Bosnia war, where America had to do more of Europe's dirty work? Not sure who you think you're fooling on this count. America has spent trillions of dollars defending Europe at many stages of the past 100 years. It was our supreme Air Force and space program that kept our western Allies safe from a Soviet invasion during the cold war. Those countries like France could sit back and save their billions and devote it to supposedly more noble ideals, while we gave them the breathing room to live. This doesn't even count the cost of protecting Japan and keeping troops in Germany since the end of WWII.
Quote:
The question is based on a falsehood. The downtrodden prefer European countries. Why wouldn't they? Latin Americans come to the US because there's an ocean between them and Europe.
That's ridiculous. First of all there is systemic racism throughout Western Europe. There is no integration of cultures in France and England, just look at the ghettoized Muslim neighborhoods and the problems that continue to creep throughout these countries. America still attracts the most people form the most countries in the world, because it is the only fully free country. There are no limits no speech outside of speech that threatens violence, unlike Europe and Canada. There is a greater opportunity to escape class controlled society in America, where anyone can become a millionaire or billionaire.
The things you say are just not supported by facts, and some of the things you say are rather shameful and outrageous. But you're in America I presume, so the things you say are fully protected. They are simply not protected at the same magnitude in the countries you seem to idealize.
Obviously, speech should not be totally free, like free to yell "fire!" in a theater. I support bans on blatant lying about important topics, like how it's illegal in Germany to deny the Holocaust (Godwin's law, I don't care). It should be illegal for Republicans to claim that Bush didn't tie Iraq to 9/11, for example.
Quote:
That's a rather sick admission on your part. What if one of those 100 people is someone you know, or worse, it's you?
It's not sick, it's being nice. If 1000 people can have a significantly better life due to the rationing of health care leading to my death, then I should die. We already ration health care in the US, just in a willy nilly way. For example, those who don't have health insurance get shunted to county hospitals, where the service is worse.
Quote:
In America we should value every life as precious and seek means to reduce the country's problems that result in the slow medical death of our countrymen.
Because our resources are not unlimited, we should ration health care so that the greatest good is achieved. If one heart is available for 4 people who need it, who should get it? Obviously, the youngest/healthiest person should get it. That's rationing we do today in the US, for good reason. Just like hearts, dollars are also limited.
Quote:
And why do you assume it would be a 100/10,000 ratio? How do you know? The answer is you don't know. Here let me help you understand:
You can always find problems. Someone's always going to a loser in rationing, and maybe disgrunted because of that. That doesn't mean that our system isn't worse. I've read enough articles to be confident that Europeans and Canadians are not interested in switching to our system. After all, they voted for their systems.
Quote:
And there are hundreds more examples where this came from. Go speak to people in the UK and Canada. These people are trying to come here to save their lives and they are just as frightened as the rest of us that socializing U.S. medicine will send thousands more to their deaths.
Really? That explains why so many Americans go overseas for cheaper health care.
Quote:
Maybe you should consider solutions that don't require limiting the health care that people get. As I mentioned there are a number of ways to cut down on costs.
No reasonable solution can have no limit on the health care people get, that doesn't involve them paying for all of it themselves. That resources are limited is a fact that isn't going away. It's impossible for me to limit my health care costs in the US. If I break my leg, the hospital can charge me $500K to set it, and they won't tell me the charge up front.
Quote:
What you're asking for is to tear down the greatness of our country. What you're saying reads right out of the text books of a Marxist.
Nope. It improves the country, just like the socialist countries are better than the US in so many ways.
Quote:
They have less freedom. Freedom isn't a guarantee of a perfect life. It's the absence of a greater statist power that constantly interferes with your life and dictates how how you should live.
Give me a break. Email I send out can be read by the US gov't. Phone calls I make can be replayed by the gov't. The library books I check out are recorded, and the gov't can examine that list. My house can be searched. All of this can happen without notice to me. The Patriot Act is commonly used for non-terrorist-related warrantless searches. All this nefarious stuff either doesn't exist or is much better in socialist countries.
Quote:
You apparently have no understanding of the situations that led to this country's founding. What you're discribing isn't freedom, it's soft tyrrany. It is un-American.
We've come a long, long way from the principles set by the founding fathers. Socialist countries are now kicking our butt in the freedom/quality of life dept.
Quote:
So we were responsible for starting both World Wars in Europe during first half of the 20th century? How about the Gulf War? Did we start that one too? Or the Bosnia war, where America had to do more of Europe's dirty work?
Nice cherry picking. The Vietnam War (to prevent democracy there), the toppling of Iran's & Chile's democracies, the Iraq War, the Cold War, all the US' doing. Countries seek nukes to defend themselves from us, not the other way around. The Gulf War was our doing too; we gave Saddam permission (when he asked for it) to invade Kuwait--our ally was set up for a double-cross, to get the oil. The Palestinian apartheid is paid for and supported by Americans. The Bosnia war is a recent exception. Clinton was on the good side.
Quote:
Not sure who you think you're fooling on this count. America has spent trillions of dollars defending Europe at many stages of the past 100 years. ...
Now that we're more powerful than all the other countries combined, do we take it down a notch? Nope. Instead, until Obama, we sought to create a missile defense shield right on Russia's border, so we could fling our own missiles with impunity. The record is overwhelming that we're the world's bully. In my lifetime we're responsible for the deaths of over 5 million innocents during wars we started for profit.
Quote:
First of all there is systemic racism throughout Western Europe. There is no integration of cultures in France and England, just look at the ghettoized Muslim neighborhoods and the problems that continue to creep throughout these countries.
There will likely always be problems you can point to. Still, our country is worse. Try to find one list that shows that the US has the highest standard of living in the world. I bet you won't find one list that doesn't have socialist countries beating the US. And when you visit those countries, it's obvious that life is better there on average.
Quote:
The things you say are just not supported by facts, and some of the things you say are rather shameful and outrageous. But you're in America I presume, so the things you say are fully protected. They are simply not protected at the same magnitude in the countries you seem to idealize.
Everything I said here can be said in any of the countries that beat the US for standard of living. This forum is open to any of those people. If there's any difference, it's that their comments are not recorded for viewing by their own gov'ts.
Obviously, speech should not be totally free, like free to yell "fire!" in a theater. I support bans on blatant lying about important topics, like how it's illegal in Germany to deny the Holocaust (Godwin's law, I don't care). It should be illegal for Republicans to claim that Bush didn't tie Iraq to 9/11, for example.
It's not sick, it's being nice. If 1000 people can have a significantly better life due to the rationing of health care leading to my death, then I should die. We already ration health care in the US, just in a willy nilly way. For example, those who don't have health insurance get shunted to county hospitals, where the service is worse.
Because our resources are not unlimited, we should ration health care so that the greatest good is achieved. If one heart is available for 4 people who need it, who should get it? Obviously, the youngest/healthiest person should get it. That's rationing we do today in the US, for good reason. Just like hearts, dollars are also limited.
You can always find problems. Someone's always going to a loser in rationing, and maybe disgrunted because of that. That doesn't mean that our system isn't worse. I've read enough articles to be confident that Europeans and Canadians are not interested in switching to our system. After all, they voted for their systems.
Really? That explains why so many Americans go overseas for cheaper health care.
No reasonable solution can have no limit on the health care people get, that doesn't involve them paying for all of it themselves. That resources are limited is a fact that isn't going away. It's impossible for me to limit my health care costs in the US. If I break my leg, the hospital can charge me $500K to set it, and they won't tell me the charge up front.
Nope. It improves the country, just like the socialist countries are better than the US in so many ways.
Give me a break. Email I send out can be read by the US gov't. Phone calls I make can be replayed by the gov't. The library books I check out are recorded, and the gov't can examine that list. My house can be searched. All of this can happen without notice to me. The Patriot Act is commonly used for non-terrorist-related warrantless searches. All this nefarious stuff either doesn't exist or is much better in socialist countries.
We've come a long, long way from the principles set by the founding fathers. Socialist countries are now kicking our butt in the freedom/quality of life dept.
Nice cherry picking. The Vietnam War (to prevent democracy there), the toppling of Iran's & Chile's democracies, the Iraq War, the Cold War, all the US' doing. Countries seek nukes to defend themselves from us, not the other way around. The Gulf War was our doing too; we gave Saddam permission (when he asked for it) to invade Kuwait--our ally was set up for a double-cross, to get the oil. The Palestinian apartheid is paid for and supported by Americans. The Bosnia war is a recent exception. Clinton was on the good side.
Now that we're more powerful than all the other countries combined, do we take it down a notch? Nope. Instead, until Obama, we sought to create a missile defense shield right on Russia's border, so we could fling our own missiles with impunity. The record is overwhelming that we're the world's bully. In my lifetime we're responsible for the deaths of over 5 million innocents during wars we started for profit.
There will likely always be problems you can point to. Still, our country is worse. Try to find one list that shows that the US has the highest standard of living in the world. I bet you won't find one list that doesn't have socialist countries beating the US. And when you visit those countries, it's obvious that life is better there on average.
Everything I said here can be said in any of the countries that beat the US for standard of living. This forum is open to any of those people. If there's any difference, it's that their comments are not recorded for viewing by their own gov'ts.
Your catch all defense is "there will always be problems that you can point to...". Wow, pretty smart rhetorical device. Except that it's not. It's weak. It can be turned around and used on your own arguments. You made some sweeping statements about US military power, you were corrected. Nobody claims America is perfect, but you are telling an incomplete story.
By and large American military power has saved lives and been use for the forces of good. You list Vietnam, a war that is owned by Democrat presidents in many ways. Funny how that fact gets constantly glossed over. It is a war that was an epic disaster in terms of the political micromanaging that doomed it to failure. But you would have us believe Iraq is worse?
As for Bush tying Iraq to 9/11, I don't see it. It didn't happen as far as I'm concerned because I see no evidence that he ever made that direct claim. There is a more over arching argument that in the post-9/11 world, we shouldn't allow rogue nations to flaunt 17 UNSEC resolutions with impunity, while ripping off the world during the oil-for-food program -- I mean scam. Bush will be remembered by objective historians as having led a successful war in Iraq and for good reasons, so long as this president doesn't sabotage those efforts.
You are also advocating fascism by saying that certain claims should be illegalized. There is no way to properly and accurately legislate speech that is not incitement to commit violence. It is precisely what the freedom of speech is about, to allow people to rebut falsehoods with facts and logic. It was never the intent of the founding fathers to limit that ability.
Your ideology is extreme, and goes beyond socialism. It can properly be described as fascism and it will be defeated in the battle of ideas in this country, as it has in the past.
As far as the suggestion that our comments are not anonymous, take a look at the UK. They have government planes flying around with heat sensing devices to measure the amount of energy people are using in their homes. You have to be completely kidding to suggest that the US is the worst in terms of invading citizens' privacy. I agree it has some major accounting to do on that front, but that is a failure of both political parties and of people who don't respect the U.S. Constitution. You are one of those people by the very statements you've made in this thread.
By and large American military power has saved lives and been use for the forces of good. You list Vietnam, a war that is owned by Democrat presidents in many ways. Funny how that fact gets constantly glossed over. It is a war that was an epic disaster in terms of the political micromanaging that doomed it to failure. But you would have us believe Iraq is worse?
Not all Democrats are liberals, esp. long ago. The Vietnam War and the Iraq War are epic disasters because we were/are the aggressors, the invaders with no reasonable threat to us; nothing else really matters.
Quote:
As for Bush tying Iraq to 9/11, I don't see it. It didn't happen as far as I'm concerned because I see no evidence that he ever made that direct claim.
While I don't support making "I see no evidence" illegal, I support "there's no evidence" being illegal. It's true that if you don't ever look, you may never see the evidence.
Quote:
You are also advocating fascism by saying that certain claims should be illegalized. There is no way to properly and accurately legislate speech that is not incitement to commit violence.
It's the opposite. If someone yells "fire!" in a theater, when there's no fire, that could easily cause violence. There are good reasons to limit freedom of speech, and our freedom of speech is already limited in many ways.
Quote:
As far as the suggestion that our comments are not anonymous, take a look at the UK. They have government planes flying around with heat sensing devices to measure the amount of energy people are using in their homes.
Perfected in the US first. I read about that happening here some 10 years ago. A Google search just confirmed I didn't dream it.
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.
