There is no breakdown by region and there is no way to discern, what exactly is the reason of the longevity/lack thereof. Is it all healthcare? Or climate? Or traditional diet? Or various life-style choices and wealth — and resulting availability of personal cars? Or misguided dieting advice?
Worse, different countries use different standards and rules for counting they very number we are comparing. Some, for example, count all humans, while others discard the still-born babies — thus improving their averages. Even more — some countries would not count babies born live but underweight.
Finally, consider two European countries: Moldova and Lithuania. The former is very poor and corrupt, the former — an EU and NATO member doing reasonably well for an ex-Soviet republic. Both provide "free" healthcare to citizens and long-term residents. Life expectancy in Moldova is 81.4, in Lithuania — 73.9. Why?
First of all, Sudan has (almost) nothing in common with Somalia — if anything, Sudan's government is too authoritarian. The below applies to Somalia only:
They have no government at all and anarchy
Somalia's problems stem from having a Collectivist government in the past — they are simply at the more advanced stage of what Venezuela is facing.
But you knew that already — your aim was to portray my argument about Venezuela equally invalid as yours. Well, they don't compare. Because unlike Somalia, Venezuela was repeatedly and actively praised by the very same people calling for the US to "accept progressive principles". Hugo Chavez was a darling of the world's Socialists. Heck, some of these moronscontinue to adore Maduro!
When I asked DogDude, what would President Sanders do differently from El Presidente Chavez, he got all indignant and would not answer — nor would any other Sanders-sympathizers I've encountered. But Republicans and Libertarians would list a multitude of differences between Somalia and what they would do, given a chance.
As I said, whatever is wrong with the US healthcare, "adopting progressive principles" is not a solution. It would by like treating a headache with suicide.
You had me disable AdBlock for this? It is not by Forbes — they simply cite a survey by Commonwealth Fund — an Illiberal organization currently headed by one Dr. Blumenthal, who has "chief health advisor to the Dukakis campaign" on his resume.
Seriously?
I know you are a Republican and thus dimwitted and gullible, but even a Trumpanzee can
You said that the alternative to the US taxation system is Venezuela.
Nope, I said that Venezuela is an example of all of the "progressive" wet-dreams coming true. And, predictably, turning into nightmare. Whatever our problem, turning the US into a "progressive" country — as the Anonymous OP implores — only makes it worse.
Have you heard about this website called "Google"?
Nope, that's not, how it works. You make a claim — Europeans live longer than Americans thanks to their progressive policies in general and single-payer healthcare in particular — you cite evidence.
You can have progressive taxation and universal healthcare or increasing inequality and more illness
Yep, the "progressive" solution is to make everyone equally sick. (Except for the chosen few, who will be more equal than others.)
Your choice.
I'm making my choice and staying in the US. You, please, make yours and move to Venezuela. It really is awesome out there — haven't you heard of Venezuelan diet, for example? Lose 19 pounds per year — and keep them off for as long as your country remains "progressive"! Guaranteed!
"Infinitely fast" means "divine" — the bottleneck becomes not the computer's ability to understand, but the human's ability to express the commands and instructions. Assuming, such omni-powerful computers would still obey me, I'd program them in Ukrainian. Or English... Does not really matter — being infinitely fast, the computer would be able to translate the programs from one language to another instantly.
Oh, and then, of course, they'd need to humans to program them at all...
political ideology is now measurable exclusively along the axis of individualism/statism
What other dimension would you propose? The second it becomes Ok for the Glorious/God-fearing/Hardworking Collective/Commune/Community to trump the Weird/Apostate/Cantankerous Individual, oppression flourishes and life begins to suck. For everyone.
The question was not for you, but for the AC, who suddenly decided, long experience is important to being the President of the US.
But you wish to talk about Sarah Palin:
Instead, he chose someone with no experience, qualifications or talent to be his running mate.
Sorry, I just couldn't support putting someone like Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency
Unlike both Barack Obama and Joseph Biden (and even John McCain), Sarah Palin actually did have executive experience — she previously ran her town as a mayor and her State as a governor. So, on the subject of experience you are objectively and verifiably wrong. Four Pinocchios...
"Talent" and "qualifications" are subjective, so I'm not going to go there.
like usual it was a choice between a turd and a douche.
No, after the Democratic primaries, where the two opposed each other, Obama was the turd and Biden was the douche. And you helped the nation elect both, while leaving the unarguably more experienced (and arguably qualified and talented) team out. Something to tell your grandchildren about...
I love cowards' hate. And their implicit agreement with my point — that the EPA board was, indeed, political, contrary to the protestations quoted in the write-up.
The more-direct argument, in today's context, is whether a form of UBI is cheaper or more expensive than our current welfare system, in total.
No, the argument is to abolish the silly — yet horrendously expensive — "War on Poverty" and allow the taxpayers to spend the monies thus left in their pockets however they see fit.
The EPA is treating this scientific advisory board like its members are political appointees when these committees are not political positions. The individuals on these boards are appointed based on scientific expertise not politics.
Could someone name two or three of the dismissed people, for whom he can vouch that they do not have a Che Guevara T-shirt?
Human progress — and the concomitant rises in productivity — are a wonderful thing and your historical facts are fascinating. But why should the reduction in work-hours be government-mandated? As long as people are free to work for whoever they wish and hire whoever they please, why wouldn't an employer gain better employees and/or higher productivity by offering shorter work-days and longer vacations? Indeed, it is happening all the time:
people like Ford started cutting back to 8-hour shifts and giving pay raises.
But let's stay on topic, shall we? The discussion is not about how many hours to work — it is whether or not people are entitled to other people's monies just for living in the same country or even on the same planet.
Yes, you did. When you pretended, that the opponents of the UBI claim, beneficiaries of the program will all simply "stop working". Though nobody made such a claim, you pretended somebody did — and attacked it. That was a strawman. By definition.
A) it was 1 study
As opposite to what? Of course, it is a study — do you demand some divine intimation?
B) not all people were shown to reduce their work.
"Most" and "all" are interchangeable synonyms in this context. You know it, I know it, any reasonable reader of this exchange knows it. But the point stands — whether all or simply most individuals will work less, the overall work done by people will be less.
Ahh, but may be some people would work more? Nope, if there was such an effect to report, TFA — hugely sympathetic to the idea of UBI — would've put it into title.
either it is just your government that sucks or the problem isn't the government at all.
Wherever the problem is, we do know something that does work — free market. It is beautiful not only because it happens to work, but also because you simply can not have a free country, if you prohibit people from selling goods and/or services to each other.
But it also works. So well, China and Russia — neither valuing personal freedom very much — have adopted it and watched their economies take off. While Venezuela, which abolished it, descended into a verifiable shit hole in less than two decades — despite being among the world's top oil-exporters.
Unfortunately, the US had no free market in the health-services industry for decades. Nor in the health-insurance industry either...
Thet's because too many private companies profit from it.
Profit is what makes things happen.
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
— Adam Smith
No, it is not the despicable "profit" — it is because government can't do anything well. Take a look at the VA hospital system — do you really want the same thing in all of the nation's hospitals?..
Because only poor receive public assistance to begin with. The subsidies and tax-incentives you are implicitly denouncing are not given out of charity but because government wants more of something. On contrast, paupers are supported out of charity — we want (at least, ostensibly) — fewer of them.
Here's your basic. You can now live and eat and get healthcare and police and fire service without fear.
Nothing prevents you from helping your neighbor — or any other stranger this way. There is absolutely no need for you to compel the rest of us to do the same. Start small, will you not?
But, hey, what makes you think, the tax-increases necessary for UBI will not be misspent by the same government apparatus too? No, if you feel charitable and wish to help the fellow men — do it yourself.
you can tell the difference between communism and what we're talking about.
There is no difference. I put it in quotes to mock. BTW, USSR never achieved Communism — we were building Communism according to the official doctrine.
What I said is entirely true — although few people (TFA cites 3%) would stop working completely — the strawman you put up initially — many will work less. TFA says so:
Trials during the 1970s in Canada and the US found people worked slightly less
and
The Dalia survey, similarly, found most people said they would spend more time with family, volunteering, or training.
So, 3% would stop working completely, and "most people" would work less. Just as I said.
how say 960 euros a month (the Netherlands experiment) would be able to pay for
I did not claim, it will "pay". I said, "help pay". It certainly would — in a country, where average pay of a Software Engineer is €41,227, the €11,520 you are citing is nothing to sneeze at.
It doesn't make much sense to contribute to a plan that can't actually be implemented unless everyone has to contribute by law.
Excuses, excuses. You certainly can help around you, who are in genuine need — but no, the screaming Totalitarian inside you demands, everybody else be compelled to do, what you think is worth doing...
The US will never have single payer healthcare
I was born and raised in a country with "single payer healthcare" — USSR. I'm much happier in the "bucket of crabs", thank you very much.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no breakdown by region and there is no way to discern, what exactly is the reason of the longevity/lack thereof. Is it all healthcare? Or climate? Or traditional diet? Or various life-style choices and wealth — and resulting availability of personal cars? Or misguided dieting advice?
Worse, different countries use different standards and rules for counting they very number we are comparing. Some, for example, count all humans, while others discard the still-born babies — thus improving their averages. Even more — some countries would not count babies born live but underweight.
Finally, consider two European countries: Moldova and Lithuania. The former is very poor and corrupt, the former — an EU and NATO member doing reasonably well for an ex-Soviet republic. Both provide "free" healthcare to citizens and long-term residents. Life expectancy in Moldova is 81.4, in Lithuania — 73.9. Why?
First of all, Sudan has (almost) nothing in common with Somalia — if anything, Sudan's government is too authoritarian. The below applies to Somalia only:
Somalia's problems stem from having a Collectivist government in the past — they are simply at the more advanced stage of what Venezuela is facing.
Wrong. Yours is such a silly meme, it has been debunked numerous times.
But you knew that already — your aim was to portray my argument about Venezuela equally invalid as yours. Well, they don't compare. Because unlike Somalia, Venezuela was repeatedly and actively praised by the very same people calling for the US to "accept progressive principles". Hugo Chavez was a darling of the world's Socialists. Heck, some of these morons continue to adore Maduro!
When I asked DogDude, what would President Sanders do differently from El Presidente Chavez, he got all indignant and would not answer — nor would any other Sanders-sympathizers I've encountered. But Republicans and Libertarians would list a multitude of differences between Somalia and what they would do, given a chance.
As I said, whatever is wrong with the US healthcare, "adopting progressive principles" is not a solution. It would by like treating a headache with suicide.
You need to learn to surrender with more grace. But I'll accept this much... Good luck!
You had me disable AdBlock for this? It is not by Forbes — they simply cite a survey by Commonwealth Fund — an Illiberal organization currently headed by one Dr. Blumenthal, who has "chief health advisor to the Dukakis campaign" on his resume.
Seriously?
Please, don't hate, asshole... Be nice, uhm ok?
Nope, I said that Venezuela is an example of all of the "progressive" wet-dreams coming true. And, predictably, turning into nightmare. Whatever our problem, turning the US into a "progressive" country — as the Anonymous OP implores — only makes it worse.
Nope, that's not, how it works. You make a claim — Europeans live longer than Americans thanks to their progressive policies in general and single-payer healthcare in particular — you cite evidence.
Do tell, what President Sanders would've done differently from El Presidente Chavez. I'm listening...
Do you have statistics for longevity — and differences in longevity — among Europeans? I'm listening...
Yep, the "progressive" solution is to make everyone equally sick. (Except for the chosen few, who will be more equal than others.)
I'm making my choice and staying in the US. You, please, make yours and move to Venezuela. It really is awesome out there — haven't you heard of Venezuelan diet, for example? Lose 19 pounds per year — and keep them off for as long as your country remains "progressive"! Guaranteed!
"Infinitely fast" means "divine" — the bottleneck becomes not the computer's ability to understand, but the human's ability to express the commands and instructions. Assuming, such omni-powerful computers would still obey me, I'd program them in Ukrainian. Or English... Does not really matter — being infinitely fast, the computer would be able to translate the programs from one language to another instantly.
Oh, and then, of course, they'd need to humans to program them at all...
What other dimension would you propose? The second it becomes Ok for the Glorious/God-fearing/Hardworking Collective/Commune/Community to trump the Weird/Apostate/Cantankerous Individual, oppression flourishes and life begins to suck. For everyone.
The question was not for you, but for the AC, who suddenly decided, long experience is important to being the President of the US.
But you wish to talk about Sarah Palin:
Unlike both Barack Obama and Joseph Biden (and even John McCain), Sarah Palin actually did have executive experience — she previously ran her town as a mayor and her State as a governor. So, on the subject of experience you are objectively and verifiably wrong. Four Pinocchios...
"Talent" and "qualifications" are subjective, so I'm not going to go there.
No, after the Democratic primaries, where the two opposed each other, Obama was the turd and Biden was the douche. And you helped the nation elect both, while leaving the unarguably more experienced (and arguably qualified and talented) team out. Something to tell your grandchildren about...
I love cowards' hate. And their implicit agreement with my point — that the EPA board was, indeed, political, contrary to the protestations quoted in the write-up.
No, the argument is to abolish the silly — yet horrendously expensive — "War on Poverty" and allow the taxpayers to spend the monies thus left in their pockets however they see fit.
And so will the American Left — fans of German government since 1930-ies.
Could someone name two or three of the dismissed people, for whom he can vouch that they do not have a Che Guevara T-shirt?
... and so the government must compel the rest at gun-point — which is how all taxes are collected. Yep.
Human progress — and the concomitant rises in productivity — are a wonderful thing and your historical facts are fascinating. But why should the reduction in work-hours be government-mandated? As long as people are free to work for whoever they wish and hire whoever they please, why wouldn't an employer gain better employees and/or higher productivity by offering shorter work-days and longer vacations? Indeed, it is happening all the time:
But let's stay on topic, shall we? The discussion is not about how many hours to work — it is whether or not people are entitled to other people's monies just for living in the same country or even on the same planet.
Yes, you did. When you pretended, that the opponents of the UBI claim, beneficiaries of the program will all simply "stop working". Though nobody made such a claim, you pretended somebody did — and attacked it. That was a strawman. By definition.
As opposite to what? Of course, it is a study — do you demand some divine intimation?
"Most" and "all" are interchangeable synonyms in this context. You know it, I know it, any reasonable reader of this exchange knows it. But the point stands — whether all or simply most individuals will work less, the overall work done by people will be less.
Ahh, but may be some people would work more? Nope, if there was such an effect to report, TFA — hugely sympathetic to the idea of UBI — would've put it into title.
No, they can't.
Wherever the problem is, we do know something that does work — free market. It is beautiful not only because it happens to work, but also because you simply can not have a free country, if you prohibit people from selling goods and/or services to each other.
But it also works. So well, China and Russia — neither valuing personal freedom very much — have adopted it and watched their economies take off. While Venezuela, which abolished it, descended into a verifiable shit hole in less than two decades — despite being among the world's top oil-exporters.
Unfortunately, the US had no free market in the health-services industry for decades. Nor in the health-insurance industry either...
Profit is what makes things happen.
No, it is not the despicable "profit" — it is because government can't do anything well. Take a look at the VA hospital system — do you really want the same thing in all of the nation's hospitals?..
Because only poor receive public assistance to begin with. The subsidies and tax-incentives you are implicitly denouncing are not given out of charity but because government wants more of something. On contrast, paupers are supported out of charity — we want (at least, ostensibly) — fewer of them.
Socialism is nothing but Communism-lite.
Nothing prevents you from helping your neighbor — or any other stranger this way. There is absolutely no need for you to compel the rest of us to do the same. Start small, will you not?
Here is the 2015 Federal Budget for example. The highlights:
Figures for 2016 aren't much different. You were saying?
But, hey, what makes you think, the tax-increases necessary for UBI will not be misspent by the same government apparatus too? No, if you feel charitable and wish to help the fellow men — do it yourself.
There is no difference. I put it in quotes to mock. BTW, USSR never achieved Communism — we were building Communism according to the official doctrine.
What I said is entirely true — although few people (TFA cites 3%) would stop working completely — the strawman you put up initially — many will work less. TFA says so:
and
So, 3% would stop working completely, and "most people" would work less. Just as I said.
I did not claim, it will "pay". I said, "help pay". It certainly would — in a country, where average pay of a Software Engineer is €41,227, the €11,520 you are citing is nothing to sneeze at.
Excuses, excuses. You certainly can help around you, who are in genuine need — but no, the screaming Totalitarian inside you demands, everybody else be compelled to do, what you think is worth doing...
I was born and raised in a country with "single payer healthcare" — USSR. I'm much happier in the "bucket of crabs", thank you very much.