Slashdot Mirror

For the country with the 2nd highest average IQ, they sure do some dumb shit in their politics.

And of course the objection is -- "But don't people who work 20-hour weeks get paid less?" And the point of TFA is that NO -- they still get paid a living wage. The difference in the Keynes future prediction and what we actually got is that that extra money has been siphoned off to the richest folks, rather than rewarding average workers, who might then have to work less hours to still live comfortably.

(Of course, whether that could actually happen in the US is a separate issue...)

FTFY. Here you can see that there are a lot of countries that don't have nearly the income inequality of the US. The culture here has been carefully crafted over time to be extremely beneficial for big industries.

More than 50%.
100 on the IQ scale is not an average. It's a standard.
http://www.photius.com/ranking...

Imaginary reality to "prove" imaginary racism. How fitting...

Hint: it ain't the skin-color. If "whitey" really were racist, Asians would've suffered from it too. But they are doing rather well. So well, in fact, that schools and colleges alike deduct points from applicants, who identify themselves as "Asians".

The most likely explanation is single-parenthood rate: children growing up with only a mother (which is still the overwhelming majority of single-"parent" households) are much likelier to grow up with problems live sucky lives — all human civilizations knew this and frowned upon unwed mothers. Not because "sex is a sin", as is the common Illiberal's strawman, but because bringing a child into this world without a loving father is a sin... Heck, we know it too!

For some reason, currently 67% of Black kids grow up in such families — compared with merely 17% of Asians and 25% of Whites... But only the KKKonservative Libertarians connect the dots.

Not for some reason. The dads are all criminals and in prison.

Imaginary reality to "prove" imaginary racism. How fitting...

Hint: it ain't the skin-color. If "whitey" really were racist, Asians would've suffered from it too. But they are doing rather well. So well, in fact, that schools and colleges alike deduct points from applicants, who identify themselves as "Asians".

The most likely explanation is single-parenthood rate: children growing up with only a mother (which is still the overwhelming majority of single-"parent" households) are much likelier to grow up with problems live sucky lives — all human civilizations knew this and frowned upon unwed mothers. Not because "sex is a sin", as is the common Illiberal's strawman, but because bringing a child into this world without a loving father is a sin... Heck, we know it too!

For some reason, currently 67% of Black kids grow up in such families — compared with merely 17% of Asians and 25% of Whites... But only the KKKonservative Libertarians connect the dots.

Google "National IQ estimates"
* Pakistan = 84
* India = 82
http://www.photius.com/ranking...

When government controls coverage (and it now does) and that coverage goes over budget... costs WILL be reduced

Right now the US spends the highest proportion of GDP on health care of any developed country, and in return gets consistently mediocre outcomes. I bloody well hope costs will be reduced.

This may be a surprise but the racial groups, such as Europeans and East asians, that carry the Neanderthal fragments, have much higher average IQs than African populations where they are not present. For instance an average European has an average IQ of 105 compared to 70 in Africa. Though, the higher IQ is likely due to divergent racial evolution that occured well after the insertion of neanderthal genes, particularly the cold winters theory, that the groups that left africa had to evolve rapidly larger, more advanced brain capacity to cope with the more difficult, complex survival challenges of cold weather environments, such as the long term planning for winter and the skills needed for making of the clothes needed to survive the cold. The cold weather environment of the north provided the challenges that pushed evolution of specific racial groups to a higher level and explains much of the IQ differences between racial groups.

We know nutrition, culture, and education have huge effects on IQ, and these all factors covary by race both between countries and within countries.

If you look at charts of countries by IQ you see huge variations across regions with a similar ethnic profile.

We know non-genetic factors are clearly playing a huge role in these countries, could genetics play a role as well? Sure, but what's our evidence? We already know that IQ varies heavily according to non-ethnic factors within ethnically contiguous regions, it's obviously playing a role in ethnically diverse regions as well.

Just because race becomes available as a variable in some comparisons doesn't mean it takes the credit from the non-racial factors we know are playing a role.

Like I said you'd claim conspiracy. Check these links:

Preventable deaths by country: http://www.allcountries.org/ranks/preventable_deaths_country_ranks_1997-1998_2002-2003_2008.html

Healthy life expectancy by country: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthy_life_table2.html

But keep up the "We're number one!" chant.

Like I said, keep shouting "Rah, rah, rah! We're number 1!" That's what your masters want. This is what WHO says: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html but I'm sure you think that's just a conspiracy.

I guess I am supposed to feel incredibly guilty. Look at this. Many of these countries have experienced exploding population growth from 1950-2000. I am sorry, but creating lots and lots of more hungry people doesn't seem like a great plan. Just imagine if these countries hadn't increased their populations 3-4x from 1950-2011, they would have an actual shot at currently "living like Americans".

I know this is third rail and can't be discussed but so be it.

If you're from Europe, where everything is left or far left, America does indeed look like it is right or far right. It all depends upon where you stand on the "left vs right" line. But America has always had a strong individual streak compared to old Europe, and its perpetual caste system.

America's caste system is stronger than most European nations -- we have lower intergenerational economic mobility than France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway, or and Denmark; another source has us even lower then the U.K.

I know that this data does not fit with American mythology, and so will probably be discarded by most of my fellow Americans.

Being leftist -- that is, in favor of the interests of working people as opposed to aristocrats or capitalists -- is far more compatible with a strong individualist streak than right-wing thought. There's nothing "individualist" about favoring a system that leaves most individuals few degrees of freedom, enthralled to their corporate masters.

We don't have a strong left in the U.S. because for much of the 20th century we deported socialists, or outright criminalized talking about leftism, for the years of "Red Scares", and because the flow of information remains dominated by right-wing corporate media.

lol, I deserved that. You are quite correct that some countries do chop off your hand for theft.

Saudi Arabia Crime and Punishment\

Under the sharia, repeated theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand, administered under anesthetic.

Aggravated theft can be punished by cross-amputation of a hand and a foot. Such cases have been unusual, but Amnesty International reported four of them in 1986. In 1990 fewer than ten hand amputations took place, at least five of which were administered to foreigners.

The car insurance analogy is like comparing apples and oranges.

No, it is not. The assertion was that it unconstitutional for the government to require anyone to enter into a contract as a reason why this bill is ill-conceived. I gave a clear and accurate counter-example. All you did was throw up a bunch of red herrings to try to confuse the issue. In the case of health coverage I am sure the end game will be to adopt something like a tax credit which you will only get if you have health coverage.

Massachusetts has had this exact system in place for years and has had NO constitutionality issues.

If you are diagnosed with a disease like cancer, time is your #1 enemy, and oftentimes it is how long it takes to get a CT scan or see an oncologist that makes the difference between life and death.

This survival rate thing is total baloney. The US runs more screens so it detects the disease earlier. So obviously if you detect the disease before it progresses much the n-year survival rate will be better even if you do no treatment what-so-ever.

This article discusses the issue and why it is mortality rates, not survival rates that count:

http://mdcarroll.com/2009/09/23/survival-rates-versus-mortality-rates/

I'm going to have to call you on that one. Maybe you can point out another country that has a better medical system, since they are so numerous and all. Be nice if you provided a link.

That is a cream puff. Here are over 30 examples.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

And people in the U.S. are overweight, eat fast food all day long, sit on their asses and smoke like chimneys. But like the aforementioned google link, people's medical care is better here.

Actually US smoking rates are about average compared to the rest of the world.

The real question is, if the U.S. is so far behind in medical care/technology why aren't any rich American's traveling to foreign countries for treatment?

How about people living in America today who have to travel abroad for treatment because they cannot get coverage or pay for the treatment here? It does no good to have great care if it is unavailable to you. According to this article 750,000 Americans traveled abroad to get care last year.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/02/business/fi-cover2

I bet that's a MUCH higher number than rich people who came to the US to get care. Who is our health care system supposed to be serving anyway? Rich foreigners or the typical American?

The idea that rich foreigners travel to the US to get care when we have 30 millions that are uninsured is morally repugnant to me, and should be to you as well. It is one of the best arguments that the current system is BROKEN.

If there is quite a bit of evidence, I'm sure it wouldn't trouble you too much to find a single example, much less a list of examples so egregious that we should sack everyone in charge and put the government in charge. I challenge you to find an entity in the U.S. more inefficient than the government.

The US government's level of efficiency is a common whipping boy when it comes to the question of whether or not government run health care is a good idea. But the fact is that most EVERY OTHER developed nation on Earth manages to run a government controlled health care system for a far lower percentage of GDP and 30+ of them with better results (at least according to the WHO study I provided a link to). You assertion is now reduced to the idea the US government is the least efficient of any developed nation. That is patently ridiculous. In fact we have one of the lowest national tax rates despite having a military bu

Which studies?

Because Sweden's health system is ranked much higher, life expectancy is much higher, and preventable deaths are much fewer.

Which studies?

Because Sweden's health system is ranked much higher, life expectancy is much higher, and preventable deaths are much fewer.

I think someone has disputed the fact that the quality of health care is good.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Was using the world health organisation's rankings. Even if they aren't 100% accurate, tey should be pretty close.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

They balanced a large bunch of stats to get their numbers and are THE guys to look to for this sorta data. Also, if you want to compare that to expenditures, look here (USA #1):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita

I assume you're referring to the cost... In every other aspect, America has the highest overall quality health care and is always at the bleeding edge of medical technology - electronic, methodic, and pharmaceutical. This is a statistically proven fact.

Really? And yet the World Health Organization has it ranked at a lowly 37. http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

(1):'more information to use against me (or you).'
That information is now with your insurance company, how is that ANY better ? in fact, that is WORSE, because there are NO restrictions and checks on validity, sale of data, ...
(2): that has nothing to do with private public health care, but with your broken 'democracy'
(3) i don't think that's enough. the private firms need to be regulated. a few examples of regulations could be : a flat rate for everybody + everybody can go and come when he pleases, and no company should be able to kick you out.

the following 2 statistics provide the results of private health care:
1/ http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2005/anderson_healthspending.html
    'U.S. Still Spends More on Health Care than Any Other Country'
2/ http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
    Usa ranks 37th.

The United States continues to lead in nobel prizes and university-level education and research as well as these measures of innovation and technological achievement.

I'm curious which metrics you used to come to your conclusion that "[a]ll innovation will take place elsewhere, as it largely is already."

Actually, why do you think the US has the highest standard of living, best medical care, richest country in the world, etc? Could be be that we were the only country to ever use free markets? Nope, couldn't POSSIBLY be because of that!

What does it mean when none of your supposed results is factual (standard of living, medical care, richness), and your supposed reason (only country to use free markets) is also incorrect? Perhaps the rest of your comments are similarly inaccurate?

The highest standard of living currently seems to be Norway, with the US at 6:
http://able2know.org/topic/55762-1

The best medical care seems to be in France or Italy (at least in 2000), with the US at 37th:
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

The richest country in the world via GNP/capita seems to be Liechtenstein, with the US at #8, according to the CIA, slightly different rankings via other sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

The freest economy of the world seems to be Hong Kong, with the US at #6. Surely all of the top six have "free markets" to at least a similar level as the US:
http://www.heritage.org/index/

Because those rankings are based upon OPINION

Yeah, because the World Health Organization bases its studies on opinion. *snark*

Besides, you're saying that because US citizens have a slightly higher chance of surviving cancer, USA has the best health care system. Please excuse me if I'm not impressed.

I think I can say with confidence that some places in America do not work at all. Gang areas where the police is even afraid to go, unemployment up to 20% in some states and as of now, no real health care for the poor.

You might call it a system that works, but I guess it depends on what you compare it to.

I found this list on google, they source it from the WHO,
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

This puts France at the top, and USA just above Slovenia at no. 37 and below Costa Rica

Not sure about this list though, seems odd, but you can't argue with WHO, just whom..

I'll take it. At least if it's France (#1), Italy (#2), Belgium (#21), or really anywhere better than the US (#37). Forget the talk show "rah rah rah U-S-A U-S-A" nonsense. If you think the US health care system is legitimately "the best", tell me by which measure.

Only Greece rivals the US in plumpness.

I call bullshit. For one, your BC study is out of date by a decade, and in that decade, healthcare costs in the US have risen 87%.

And even granting the fact that Greece is as fat as us, or fatter, Greece has national healthcare and ranks fourteenth on the same scale that rates the US as #37 (2005). And the Greeks spend the least per-capita on healthcare in the EU at $2,179/person, per the 2007 UN Human Development Report. (not, however, the least as a percentage of GDP, according to the first link). The US, per the same report, spends $6096/person.

So what accounts for the other $4000? We aren't 3x as fat. Just 3x as stupid because we accept this state of affairs.

And no responsibility either?

If you get hit by a car, you cannot sue the driver for damages. But the state will sue the driver in criminal court(I think that part is the same in the USA).

I've never heard of the state suing the driver for damages, but the injured can. That's how the medical bills were paid. Unfortunately they didn't have enough insurance coverage to take care of me the rest of my life. That would be a problem whether the injured party or the government sued.

Why would the employer should pay?

It's called responsibility. If the employer had tried to check into employees but didn't find any warning then I'd agree they shouldn't be on the hook. I'd instead hold the person who drove responsible. However the person who hit me had a record of trouble. He left his own state and moved to mine because his state issued an arrest warrant in his name. He had caused accidents before, and he had been taken to the hospital more than once. He was a diabetic but did not take care of his diabetes.

Why would I start a business if one employee can wreck my business if he doesn't behave correctly?

I can say the same about starting a business in Europe. The number 1 country in health care rankings in the previous link was France. A few years ago there were widespread riots in France by the youth. Why did they riot? Because the government was going to make it easier for employers to fire employees under the age of 26, right now it's hard to fire them. My sister's a CPA, Certified Public Accountant, who along with friends started their own accounting business. In doing so they created jobs for others. I doubt she would have started the business if she couldn't fire bad employees easily. It seems that under European rules businesses almost go bankrupt before being able to fire bad employees.

Falcon

truly spectacular care is in Europe these days, sadly the US healthcare system has defeated itself due to the cost of doing business here for most physicians. What America has is the _perception_ of good healthcare, however, just because sombody has a specialist for every ailment doesn't mean they're getting remotely good healthcare. in the US there are typically around 12 Doctors involved in the average Americans healthcare. have you ever been to a doctors office? do you know how busy- especially a decent specialist- is? do you think any of them really know _any_ of their patients well from a physicians standpoint? more to the point, do you think these doctors actually communicate? i know theres a lot of citation needed for a post like that but i'm too burned out on the issue to gather the facts, having worked in the medical field as a healthcare professional for a while i've seen firsthand the fiasco that is the US heathcare system. sorry folks, you arent getting "the best healthcare in the world" not even close. in fact

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

the US fares pretty abysmally.

while its true the above WHO report does have a slight bias to social medicine due to cost being factored in (which isnt a bad thing) there is no denying that the outcomes for patients in the US are certainly not world class.

[sarcasm]Yes, heaven forbid the United States catch up with the rest of the developed world and get a system that works better while costing less.[/sarcasm] Passport security and health systems have nothing to do with each other, please let you brain do the thinking, not your mouth or your gut.

[sarcasm]Yes, heaven forbid the United States catch up with the rest of the developed world and get a system that works better while costing less.[/sarcasm] Passport security and health systems have nothing to do with each other, please let you brain do the thinking, not your mouth or your gut.

Your statement is at the very least miss leading if not completely full of crap. The FDA equivalents of many nations with "socialized" medical systems (European/Canadian) have been running much smoother to that of the US. They have acted to ban many substances the FDA has ignored. A quick search yielded this article "http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1008-01.htm" . The issue isn't simply that the FDA bans fewer substances than its peers. That could be because the FDA made an informed decision not to do so. The issue is that our FDA either takes a much much longer time to reach a conclusion or simply dose little investigation at all and fails to make an informed decision.

Secondly another user previously pointed out that the USA spends 15% of its GDP on health care the Canada 10% and the UK 7.5% Both nation have more socialized systems and higher health care rankings according to all metrics I have come across. For example the WHOs rankings http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Third point. The costs of malpractice litigation is virtually insignificant to the industry as a whole. http://www.piaa.us/pdf_files/press_releases/Kessler_Malpins_Report.pdf . The net cost of insurance for the industry is on the order of magnitude of billions and that's including all transfer of funds, not just lost productivity. When health care costs are on the order of hundreds of billions, one or two billion is nothing and to bring it up is just silly. Its like talking about the cost of parking meters being a significant aspect of the health care system.

In short the data indicates that STATE RUN INSURANCE PLANS REDUCE COSTS AND MAKE THINGS MORE EFFICIENT. you talk about reducing waste as the means reduce costs. I agree. However you fail to realize that the evidence/data indicate that THE WHOLE PRIVATE HEALTH INDUSTRY IS THE WASTE.

Yes I know. However Hungary is part of Europe. And nuclear power won't last long there either, "In the late 1980s, estimates of the actual size of the country's uranium deposits were unavailable, but official sources indicated that Hungary had uranium reserves sufficient to supply its domestic needs until about the year 2020. In the mid-1980s, the Soviet Union guaranteed Hungary's future nuclear-fuel needs." I don't know how authoritative it is but the Austrian Energy Agency says the Hungary Renewable Energy Profile is advancing to an open energy market with "very good prospects for biomass energy projects. There are additional opportunities for hydro and geothermal energy development (especially for heat applications). However, opportunities for large scale wind or solar projects appear limited." Where Hungary falls short on electrical needs High-voltage direct current transmission lines can provide electricity from solar and wind where those are feasible. Spain and Germany, who are the third and second largest wind energy generators, could provide some electricity. And Turkey, and again Spain, can provide solar power.

Now as a matter of trade, Hungary would have to produce something these other countries want and I don't know what Hungary produces.

Falcon

Shall I continue? #19 in the world on Acute Care Beds.

We DO, however, SPEND by far the most on health care. Over $4,000 per person per year. Our health expenditure increases over 3% per annum, in excess of inflation. Ask yourself what you got for that money some time, when you're talking about defining "best" healthcare.

We DON'T have some of the best healthcare in the world. But we ARE told that, in order to justify the fact that our premiums keep going up and up and up. (My wife and I went from $431 to $510 a month last year, despite no non-routine events).

In fact, according to the WHO, on an overall index of "overall health performance" we're not even in the top 20 countries in the world. On "levels of health" we rank SEVENTY SECOND, and on "level of health care performance", THIRTY SEVENTH (from http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_systems.html).

Moore didn't exactly show the experience of the average Cuban. He and his prop were treated like a VIPs so Castro could embarrass Bush and the US. I've been to Cuba and know people currently living there. The healthcare system sucks there. My friend's family members always ask us to bring basic medical supplies, aspirin, antibiotics, vitamins, antiseptics, you name it.

Yet Cuba is only two countries below the US according to the World Health Organization's rankings. The US is 37 and Cuba is 39. http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Also they have the best healthcare system in the world http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

and it's social medicine... just saying...

Free for all means mediocre or poor for everyone.

That means: medical care in all other developed western countries is a poor quality one? Please, tell me your are kidding :-)

I guess the main point here is: some cultures sees the capitalism as a "way to achieve things" and other cultures sees it as a "life style".

UHC is seen as a "must have" for the first group, because health is not a "thing". It is a right for every human being. And UHC is evil for the second group, as health is included in the "things" list.

Given a free market economy, having a society that doesn't age will have some interesting effects. One of the more nasty is dealing with the rapidly diverging economic classes.

See, some people manage their money and assets well, others just don't. In today's world, those that do manage well (the Warren Buffetts of the world, large and small) have only so long to accumulate wealth before they die, leaving their assets to kin who rarely do as well. Within a few generations, that wealth will be gone, and new powerheads raise up.

It's a system of creation and destruction that has no end, and is largely self-stabilizing. But if people can live forever, those who can't manage their wealth will forever live just above their poverty line while those who can manage their wealth become wealthier and wealthier... forever. People of the likes of Trump, Gates, and Ellison will always be rich, and usually will be getting richer.

Further, consider that those most able to AFFORD life extension technology will be the savers and asset managers, and you see very quickly that this is a problem that makes the problems of today's middle-class erosion look like a walk in the park.

Me, I bridge these two categories. I'm pretty good at making substantial amounts of money, but I'm also pretty good at spending it. I'm working on saving a significant amount of my income. It's not easy for me, as I naturally view money as something to spend, not something to save, so I use lots of charts and monthly meetings with my wife to discuss our financial situation and I'm pretty damned insistent that we improve our financial picture significantly every month and every quarter.

But if life extension technology becomes available, I want to be where I need to be to get it!

Of course, there are other problems to be solved. What about overpopulation? Today's death rate in the United States is just shy of 0.9%. But if people "lived forever" the death rate would drop through the floor, so the birth rate would have to similarly drop to avoid a severe population bomb. We can't just tell people to wait until they are 200 years old to reproduce, since a woman ovulates every month, and there are a finite amount of eggs available in a female to give. Therefore, we have to allow for child birth by lottery, by tying births to existing deaths, or some other mechanism to equalize the birth/death rates to fit the resources available.

Otherwise, we'll just crash Mother Earth, something we're on the verge of doing anyway!

Not America bashing, I have many issues with europe but before you spout off about pollution maybe you should look into it first.. Air: http://www.photius.com/rankings/air_pollution_map.pdf Western Europe is about the best in the world.. Water: #30th worst United States: 1.14 tons/cubic km

Yeah, those socialist nut jobs at the World Health Organization who rank Cuba just below the U.S. in terms of health care are the liars. Not the Republican Party, who insist that our health care system is just peachy.

WHO Health Care Rankings by Nation:

Canada #30

USA #37

Cuba #39

Source

Because I like sauce with my whine and cheese.

"There really are no alternative to public roads. Private roads, as in "500 evil big business companies neglecting 500 duplicate roads to everywhere and nowhere" is a strawman favored for those who oppose private anything."

Incidentally, this is not a strawman that I've ever heard used to oppose private sector public services.

"The private alternative to public roads is private maintenance of public roads. There are dozens of construction companies listed in my local yellow pages alone. It took at least 14 years for my city to fill a large pothole (it was there since before I was born) despite it being off a main thoroughfair. I'm pretty sure ABC Building Co. or ZZ Thomlinson Inc. could've done as good a job or better."

You do understand that, in theory, this is already what we do for the bulk of public construction and maintenance projects, right? The DPW guys who fix potholes are basically just community handymen. At least in my area (Western Massachusetts), it is nearly as common to see private contractors doing repairs on public roads as it is to see DPW guys doing it. That said, the system you described is subject to extreme corruption and requires a huge amount of administrative overhead to actually implement... sound familiar?

"Private schools can easily provide access that is "as fair and public" as public school. Just give them the same tax dollars public schools are given - it's called a "voucher program."

Why? Private schools do not perform universally better, and the ones that do significantly outperform public schools cost a great deal more per student than public ones. Even here, with our supposedly dire public education problems, places where public schools are supported and respected are almost never the places cited as problem areas... chronically underfund and neglect your schools, and you have no right to be outraged that they suck. Besides, your vouchers don't even lower the tax burden, so what's the point?

"What say Public School #123 educates at an average cost of $5687 a head. Give every student a $5687 coupon they can apply towards public or private school tuition. That simple - in fact, more people would have more access to more schools."

Again, why? Public education can and does work just fine in other Western industrialized nations, and even works just fine in those parts of this one where people who want it to work are able to do so. Beyond that, I'm pretty sure you would just see private schools adopt a base price of (in this example) $5687 in order to maximize profits, $5687 that comes directly from tax revenues... so much for your cost saving measure.

"Now, I'd like you to cite an example where government services anywhere have outperformed any competitive, private-sector service. Amtrak would be a "great" place to start."

How about health care instead? According to the WHO (whose opinion on international health care, I think we can all agree, is going to be much better informed than any American lawyer or businessman) our health care system is outright worse than virtually any other industrial nation and also one of the least socialized in the industrial West. They also find that Americans, on average, spend 56% of income on health care, a figure that dwarves virtually all other industrial nations' expenditures. In fact, I went through the WHO's top 10 health care systems and found that Singapore is the only non-socialized health care system in the top 12 (I got tired of researching it and stopped after Norway... I don't see any nations above Saudi Arabia on the list that would would guess aren't socialized as well).

As for Amtrak... we're too focused on automobiles, long range train transit is just anathema to most Americans, and any deficiency in Amtrak's service (which, in my experience, isn't actually that terrible) is both inconsequential to and perhaps a result of that focus. As with schools, other nations can do it just fine, so there is no reason to believe that we can't make it work too.

"There really are no alternative to public roads. Private roads, as in "500 evil big business companies neglecting 500 duplicate roads to everywhere and nowhere" is a strawman favored for those who oppose private anything."

Incidentally, this is not a strawman that I've ever heard used to oppose private sector public services.

"The private alternative to public roads is private maintenance of public roads. There are dozens of construction companies listed in my local yellow pages alone. It took at least 14 years for my city to fill a large pothole (it was there since before I was born) despite it being off a main thoroughfair. I'm pretty sure ABC Building Co. or ZZ Thomlinson Inc. could've done as good a job or better."

You do understand that, in theory, this is already what we do for the bulk of public construction and maintenance projects, right? The DPW guys who fix potholes are basically just community handymen. At least in my area (Western Massachusetts), it is nearly as common to see private contractors doing repairs on public roads as it is to see DPW guys doing it. That said, the system you described is subject to extreme corruption and requires a huge amount of administrative overhead to actually implement... sound familiar?

"Private schools can easily provide access that is "as fair and public" as public school. Just give them the same tax dollars public schools are given - it's called a "voucher program."

Why? Private schools do not perform universally better, and the ones that do significantly outperform public schools cost a great deal more per student than public ones. Even here, with our supposedly dire public education problems, places where public schools are supported and respected are almost never the places cited as problem areas... chronically underfund and neglect your schools, and you have no right to be outraged that they suck. Besides, your vouchers don't even lower the tax burden, so what's the point?

"What say Public School #123 educates at an average cost of $5687 a head. Give every student a $5687 coupon they can apply towards public or private school tuition. That simple - in fact, more people would have more access to more schools."

Again, why? Public education can and does work just fine in other Western industrialized nations, and even works just fine in those parts of this one where people who want it to work are able to do so. Beyond that, I'm pretty sure you would just see private schools adopt a base price of (in this example) $5687 in order to maximize profits, $5687 that comes directly from tax revenues... so much for your cost saving measure.

"Now, I'd like you to cite an example where government services anywhere have outperformed any competitive, private-sector service. Amtrak would be a "great" place to start."

How about health care instead? According to the WHO (whose opinion on international health care, I think we can all agree, is going to be much better informed than any American lawyer or businessman) our health care system is outright worse than virtually any other industrial nation and also one of the least socialized in the industrial West. They also find that Americans, on average, spend 56% of income on health care, a figure that dwarves virtually all other industrial nations' expenditures. In fact, I went through the WHO's top 10 health care systems and found that Singapore is the only non-socialized health care system in the top 12 (I got tired of researching it and stopped after Norway... I don't see any nations above Saudi Arabia on the list that would would guess aren't socialized as well).

As for Amtrak... we're too focused on automobiles, long range train transit is just anathema to most Americans, and any deficiency in Amtrak's service (which, in my experience, isn't actually that terrible) is both inconsequential to and perhaps a result of that focus. As with schools, other nations can do it just fine, so there is no reason to believe that we can't make it work too.

Yes, Canada is cheaper, but the service is crap in comparison. Mortality rates for most cancers, heart attacks, etc. is substatnially lower. Wikipedia will confirm:

The World Health Organization (WHO) in 2000 ranked the U.S. health care system first in both responsiveness and expenditure, but 37th in overall performance and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).

The CIA World Factbook ranked the United States 41st in the world for lowest infant mortality rate[13] and 45th for highest total life expectancy.[14]

One of the major complaints about the Canadian health care system is waiting times, whether for a specialist, major elective surgery, such as hip replacement, or specialized treatments, such as radiation for breast cancer.

Show me less cost and same value, or same cost and better value, and I'll believe you.

Being from Kanuckistan (Canada), I pretty much disagree with pudge on everything, as a matter of principle. Still, as long as he doesn't abuse his position as an editor to mod-bomb opposing points of view to oblivion, it's better to have these "discussions" out in the open, where we're forced to not only express our side, but to defend it by force of logic.

It's funny how everyone criticizes Canada for being socialist, but it's the US who is currently engaged in "privatizing profits, socializing losses" by bailing out banks and Wall Street. I'm sure it would be the same for health care - if a large HMO were about to go bust, they'd get a bail-out package, but the average taxpayer can piss up a rope for all the good it will do.

It's the same thing with the current tilt toward fascism in the US. How much longer before "your papers, please" becomes the norm for everything, as if that will somehow offset the damage done by a foreign policy that is making the US the #1 threat to world security?

the world is changing. In terms of purchasing power parity, China's economy is now #2 after the US - and we'll probably see them surpass the US within a few years in terms of PPP, and in absolute terms before 2050. Of course, if the recession is as severe as some are predicting, or there's a massive swing away from the greenback, the US decline will be much quicker.

...like making false claims perhaps? The United States only has "the best health care outcomes" if you can afford it, and the vast majority of us cannot so we get whatever we can afford or if we're one of the fortunate ones with insurance we get whatever insurance will cover. HMOs are designed to make money so cross your fingers if you need a costly procedure because they may very well drop your coverage.

U.S. healthcare system ranked #37th http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
24th in life expectancy http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-life.html
37th in infant mortality http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/ranking_Infant_Mortality_Rate_aall.htm

etc. etc. etc.

I must agree with your two detractors... you're logic twists and turns without any real coherency.

I am not an idealist, simply a realist. I understand that there are several countries with socialized systems that work very poorly. I also understand there are several countries with socailized health care systems that work extremely well (read better than ours).

It is not a crime against America to point out it's flaws. We are, by far, the most powerful, "richest" country in the world, yet our health care system doesn't even rank in the top 30! In case you weren't aware of this, I'll give you the current rankings (provided by http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html):

1 France 2 Italy 3 San Marino 4 Andorra 5 Malta 6 Singapore 7 Spain 8 Oman 9 Austria 10 Japan 11 Norway 12 Portugal 13 Monaco 14 Greece 15 Iceland 16 Luxembourg 17 Netherlands 18 United Kingdom 19 Ireland 20 Switzerland 21 Belgium 22 Colombia 23 Sweden 24 Cyprus 25 Germany 26 Saudi Arabia 27 United Arab Emirates 28 Israel 29 Morocco 30 Canada 31 Finland 32 Australia 33 Chile 34 Denmark 35 Dominica 36 Costa Rica 37 United States of America

Now, if you want to continue to glorify the US health care system to me, by all means... ignore reality and listen to the propaganda you've been fed. If you want to take a hard look at reality, it's time to realize that we are woefully lacking in health care. There are several reasons we can point to for this, a prominent one being insurance companies skimming massive profits for doing nothing more than managing the money we give them. There are many many others, but the point is, we must be looking for these broken areas and engage in discussions on how to fix them. If you fail to see the problems we currently have in our health care system, we can no longer have an intelligent discussion, because reason eludes you.

Is the answer socialized health care? Perhaps. Universal health care? Possibly. A dismantling and reconfiguration of the current monopolistic, private, profit-driven-lower-expenses-at-all-costs-while-pooling-massive-amounts-of-money-at-the-top, and unfair redistribution system? Maybe. I don't care if it's private, public, democratic, republican, communist... whatever - I just want it to be better, because as a proud nation of Americans, we deserve better!!!

By the way, you're claim that HMO's are interested in preventative health care is a bunch of BS. Why do you think they're still pushing prescription drugs at us, instead of pushing preventative medicine? Because there's exponentially more profit to be made in treating someone who's dying than in educating and preventing that condition in the first place. It's simple business economics. Then again, you seem to place all your trust in Corporate America, so I can't expect you to see the truth of all this.

Sweden: 21.69
Iceland: 2.72;
your point was?

But if you're so blinded by your love of socialized medicine that you can't see the good aspects of our system, you really have no business saying who is or isn't capable of critical thought.

Maybe it's because most Americans are waiting for another country to implement a system that actually works.

Check out the World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health care systems

36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia

It's not like our current system is working so great as it is now.

Actually that's incorrect, according to this pdf on health care systems the U.S. pays substancially more than Canada and other developed countries for health care. This is backed up by the World Health Organization Rankings. The important part of the study is that the U.S. is not really getting better health care than other countries. Some people in the U.S. get the best money can buy, but a substancially large number including a sizeable population of minorities get substancially substandard health care. So much so that it can cut the average life expectancy of a black male by almost 20 years when compared to a white male. A difference that is not commonly in other countries.