I think for some folks, it will set in when their private insurance perks above whatever standard the government sets is stripped of it's tax break.
For the elderly, it'll set in when they go to have their glaucoma fixed and put on a 1-year waiting list like they are in the UK, or a 50 year old goes in for a kidney transplant and is told he's too old to receive a transplant under the government health plan or the elderly patient with the broken hip is told that they are too old for the government to pay for surgery since the actuary tables says they'll most likely be dead in 5 years anyway.
Obama is far to the left of the American electorate. That statement stands on it's own.
If you look at the polls on socialization of health care, nationalization of the banking industry, nationalization of the auto-industry, and blanket support for unions, where Obama lines up and where Americans in general line up are not the same.
How exactly is this health care going to be paid for?
By taxing the rich who don't pay their fair share!
Sarcasm aside, this country is already fundamentally insolvent even if we do not add on additional liabilities like socialized health care. We can't pay the bills we had in 2007, we can't pay the bills we've added since then, and we damn sure can't pay the bills Obama is planning to add on top...even if you kill the rich and the middle class and confiscate their wealth. Not that Obama and company won't get around to trying that when their abject failure becomes apparent. That of course, assumes that failure of the US economic is not their end goal....which it might very well be (it would be hard to figure out how they could be even more irresponsible).
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the speech where she said a female latina Judge would come to a better decision (on the basis of her being female and latina) than a white male judge.
Now, I fell off the political correct bandwagon a long time ago, but I do believe that the bulk of the people that make up the Democratic party would've had themselves a little uproar if John Roberts had said something of the lines of "I think a white male judge can come to a better informed, fairer decision than a black female judge".
You don't buy that a guy with about 5 years of legislative experience (2 years nationally), far to the left of mainstream politics could single-handedly organize a fund-raising monster that would shatter all previous campaign treasuries?
The majority of Latinos in the US are of Mexican descent. I should know, I married one.
One thing that Latin cultures do all share, besides language, is machismo. Which might just affect the relatively frequency of doctor's visits for perceived minor maladies. And when those maladies turn out to be severe, things like that can affect death rates.
My in-law's father had to basically be forced to go to the doctor to get treated for diabetes, which had gone untreated for several months and he was going downhill fast. In a different situation, with a different family, he'd be pushing up daisies.
Your position on race is commendable, but for a scientific experiment, I suggest you go ask various people what their "race" is. Most will pick their skin color. A few might say "human". Most Mexicans seem to think Mexican is a race.
The point being, whether or not you think race is relevant is irrelevant, because most people out there do think it's relevant. And it shapes their behavior from everything high and low. And that behavior, aggregated into a rough category called "culture" affects health outcomes. Simple things like common diets and willingness to see the doctor can have dramatic statistical effects on life expectancy if there is even a slight variation between population sub-groups.
Most New Yorkers live in New York City. Most Californians live in LA. Most of the rest of the United States does not look like either NYC or LA.
Texas alone is larger in size than either the UK or France is. There are regions (the Northeast) where European style solutions might work for various problems, and there are other areas where they would not.
I do find it remarkable the degree to which Europeans still manage to maintain this air of superiority and confidence they have finally discovered "the one true way", especially in light of the fact that 100 years ago, most of your forebears were still bowing to a king or saluting a dictator.
I could go on, but I think my point has been made.
Yes, you made the point that you are a smug asshole quite well.
However, if you are trying to argue that th Nordic countries are more ethnically and culturally diverse than the United States, I'm afraid you fell flat on your face. And not surprisingly, where "diversity" is commonplace, say in Malmo, even the Swedes are running into issues.
2.5% of Canadians are of African descent vs 13.4% in the United States. 1.0% of Canadians are of Latino descent vs 14.8% in the United States. In fact, the US has more people of African descent than Canada has people (and the same, obviously, for people of Latin descent).
Latinos and Blacks have worse expected health outcomes not because they are Latino or Black, but because a disproportionate number of them are poor.
You couldn't be more wrong. Poverty isn't the determining factor...culture is. In the United States, health care for the poor is socialized and free. That's where Medicaid comes in. Life expectancy is largely a measure of quality of diet, activity, and preventative (and pre-natal) care. American Blacks and Latinos tend to have poorer diets than average, and tend to under participate in programs which they are eligible for when it comes to medical care.
You can't really fairly compare Europe and the US. European nations are much more culturally and racially homogeneous than the US, have smaller populations and more densely populated, and Russia excepting, are much smaller in geographic size. The challenges each has to face and the workable solutions are, in most cases, completely different.
As soon as the government lets it. We no longer have anything approaching a free market, so it would be nice if the socialists would stop trumpeting about the failure of the free market.
So don't blame governments as such for the failings of the American government. Canadian governments, for all their astonishing failures, still manage to deliver health care more cheaply and effectively than the American government does (and yes, I mean the government: the US government pays more public dollars per capita than all levels of government in Canada do, and we get better outcomes as measured by longevity, infant mortality and morbidity than you do.)
Unfortunately, once you control for race, most of those Canadian advantages disappear into thin air. The US has a more diverse population which negatively impacts the statistics the Oh Canada chest thumpers like to trumpet (read: more Latinos and Blacks, who have worse expected health outcomes vis-a-vis life expectancy and infant mortality).
The US also has 10x the population of Canada, and what works well for some provincial backwater some 33 million people will not work for a country with a much larger, much more diverse population.
The problem with "external costs" is, how do you assign a $ value to GHG emissions that isn't ultimately pulled out of someone's ass? Especially if we're talking about the garden variety CO2.
Cap and spend is just another scheme to fleece the taxpayer. But considering 45% of the working public no longer has a net positive Federal tax obligation and thus no longer have any sort of stake in tax hikes, I guess it doesn't matter all that much. Responsible government has gone the way of the do-do bird.
The problem with that argument is that what we have is not a free market. It's series of cartels. That's why we spend more than twice as much on health care as other industrialized countries and get treatment closer to the bottom of the scale. Because there are so many entrenched cartels in the health care industry.
This is, quite frankly, socialist bullshit. Government regulation and intervention has been the primary factor in the inflation of health care costs.
New industries might start out competitive but once they get to a certain size, they start bending the rules in their own favor. Using unfair practices to freeze out competition, getting sweetheart legislation pushed through Congress, buying influence.
And this never happens when the industries are run by the governments. Nah, you'd never have government cronyism replace private market cronyism, because we'd only employ the best, most honest people as our bureaucrats.
You free market preachers are just naive. The only free markets are also fair markets. And if you think what we have today is a fair market, you need to pass the bong. Government is the only entity that has the ability to groom a competitive marketplace. What we have today is what happens when government stops doing that job for 10 years. The rich get richer and there's no accountability for cheating. Economic collapse follows right after.
Rich getting richer? Hardly. Not anymore. What you have is a rogue government led not by the elected politicians, but by the bureaucrats people like you would empower even more. This government enforces laws not to provide justice, but to selectively punish those who provoke the ire of the petty bureaucrat. Obama coming into power hasn't changed anything (and if anything, his people are more corrupt than Bush's were).
When government has failed as badly as ours is in the process of doing, I don't think the solution is more government.
Are you saying that Osama bin Laden was not trained by the US as an anti-communist guerrilla against the Soviets? Because that's an easily verifiable fact.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's a bald faced lie by the left. Since you are so handy with Wikipedia, you might want to look up OBL's entry:
Hint, no connection with the US and OBL. Thanks for playing moron. It's sad people like you get to vote and cancel out people who actually bother to be informed.
Slashdot Mirror
And of course, by then it will be too late.
I think for some folks, it will set in when their private insurance perks above whatever standard the government sets is stripped of it's tax break.
For the elderly, it'll set in when they go to have their glaucoma fixed and put on a 1-year waiting list like they are in the UK, or a 50 year old goes in for a kidney transplant and is told he's too old to receive a transplant under the government health plan or the elderly patient with the broken hip is told that they are too old for the government to pay for surgery since the actuary tables says they'll most likely be dead in 5 years anyway.
Obama is far to the left of the American electorate. That statement stands on it's own.
If you look at the polls on socialization of health care, nationalization of the banking industry, nationalization of the auto-industry, and blanket support for unions, where Obama lines up and where Americans in general line up are not the same.
How exactly is this health care going to be paid for?
By taxing the rich who don't pay their fair share!
Sarcasm aside, this country is already fundamentally insolvent even if we do not add on additional liabilities like socialized health care. We can't pay the bills we had in 2007, we can't pay the bills we've added since then, and we damn sure can't pay the bills Obama is planning to add on top...even if you kill the rich and the middle class and confiscate their wealth. Not that Obama and company won't get around to trying that when their abject failure becomes apparent. That of course, assumes that failure of the US economic is not their end goal....which it might very well be (it would be hard to figure out how they could be even more irresponsible).
Uh, don't listen to the news do you?
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the speech where she said a female latina Judge would come to a better decision (on the basis of her being female and latina) than a white male judge.
Now, I fell off the political correct bandwagon a long time ago, but I do believe that the bulk of the people that make up the Democratic party would've had themselves a little uproar if John Roberts had said something of the lines of "I think a white male judge can come to a better informed, fairer decision than a black female judge".
You don't buy that a guy with about 5 years of legislative experience (2 years nationally), far to the left of mainstream politics could single-handedly organize a fund-raising monster that would shatter all previous campaign treasuries?
How's that hope and change working out for you?
Like I told people...you were going to get what you asked for but not what you wanted.
The majority of Latinos in the US are of Mexican descent. I should know, I married one.
One thing that Latin cultures do all share, besides language, is machismo. Which might just affect the relatively frequency of doctor's visits for perceived minor maladies. And when those maladies turn out to be severe, things like that can affect death rates.
My in-law's father had to basically be forced to go to the doctor to get treated for diabetes, which had gone untreated for several months and he was going downhill fast. In a different situation, with a different family, he'd be pushing up daisies.
Your position on race is commendable, but for a scientific experiment, I suggest you go ask various people what their "race" is. Most will pick their skin color. A few might say "human". Most Mexicans seem to think Mexican is a race.
The point being, whether or not you think race is relevant is irrelevant, because most people out there do think it's relevant. And it shapes their behavior from everything high and low. And that behavior, aggregated into a rough category called "culture" affects health outcomes. Simple things like common diets and willingness to see the doctor can have dramatic statistical effects on life expectancy if there is even a slight variation between population sub-groups.
Most New Yorkers live in New York City. Most Californians live in LA. Most of the rest of the United States does not look like either NYC or LA.
Texas alone is larger in size than either the UK or France is. There are regions (the Northeast) where European style solutions might work for various problems, and there are other areas where they would not.
I do find it remarkable the degree to which Europeans still manage to maintain this air of superiority and confidence they have finally discovered "the one true way", especially in light of the fact that 100 years ago, most of your forebears were still bowing to a king or saluting a dictator.
I could go on, but I think my point has been made.
Yes, you made the point that you are a smug asshole quite well.
However, if you are trying to argue that th Nordic countries are more ethnically and culturally diverse than the United States, I'm afraid you fell flat on your face. And not surprisingly, where "diversity" is commonplace, say in Malmo, even the Swedes are running into issues.
Who said trains weren't viable in the US? Certainly not me. I'm a big proponent of rail.
Trains however aren't really viable as a replacement for the personal vehicle because of how our housing and employment is structured.
You must have missed this part of my post
and Russia excepting
And anyway, Russia pretty much under performs the US on just about every health care indicator.
Firstly, as above, the US population is not more diverse than Canada's.
Yes it is, as a 2 second Google search would have proved out.
But to help the lazy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada#Ethnicity
2.5% of Canadians are of African descent vs 13.4% in the United States. 1.0% of Canadians are of Latino descent vs 14.8% in the United States. In fact, the US has more people of African descent than Canada has people (and the same, obviously, for people of Latin descent).
Latinos and Blacks have worse expected health outcomes not because they are Latino or Black, but because a disproportionate number of them are poor.
You couldn't be more wrong. Poverty isn't the determining factor...culture is. In the United States, health care for the poor is socialized and free. That's where Medicaid comes in. Life expectancy is largely a measure of quality of diet, activity, and preventative (and pre-natal) care. American Blacks and Latinos tend to have poorer diets than average, and tend to under participate in programs which they are eligible for when it comes to medical care.
USA economy is probably closer, technically, to a fascist economic
system.
I'm pretty sure that word doesn't mean what you think it means.
You can't really fairly compare Europe and the US. European nations are much more culturally and racially homogeneous than the US, have smaller populations and more densely populated, and Russia excepting, are much smaller in geographic size. The challenges each has to face and the workable solutions are, in most cases, completely different.
Ok, when's Microsoft going to die?
How about American Airlines?
When do I get to celebrate the passing of GM?
As soon as the government lets it. We no longer have anything approaching a free market, so it would be nice if the socialists would stop trumpeting about the failure of the free market.
So don't blame governments as such for the failings of the American government. Canadian governments, for all their astonishing failures, still manage to deliver health care more cheaply and effectively than the American government does (and yes, I mean the government: the US government pays more public dollars per capita than all levels of government in Canada do, and we get better outcomes as measured by longevity, infant mortality and morbidity than you do.)
Unfortunately, once you control for race, most of those Canadian advantages disappear into thin air. The US has a more diverse population which negatively impacts the statistics the Oh Canada chest thumpers like to trumpet (read: more Latinos and Blacks, who have worse expected health outcomes vis-a-vis life expectancy and infant mortality).
The US also has 10x the population of Canada, and what works well for some provincial backwater some 33 million people will not work for a country with a much larger, much more diverse population.
The problem with "external costs" is, how do you assign a $ value to GHG emissions that isn't ultimately pulled out of someone's ass? Especially if we're talking about the garden variety CO2.
Cap and spend is just another scheme to fleece the taxpayer. But considering 45% of the working public no longer has a net positive Federal tax obligation and thus no longer have any sort of stake in tax hikes, I guess it doesn't matter all that much. Responsible government has gone the way of the do-do bird.
The problem with that argument is that what we have is not a free market. It's series of cartels. That's why we spend more than twice as much on health care as other industrialized countries and get treatment closer to the bottom of the scale. Because there are so many entrenched cartels in the health care industry.
This is, quite frankly, socialist bullshit. Government regulation and intervention has been the primary factor in the inflation of health care costs.
New industries might start out competitive but once they get to a certain size, they start bending the rules in their own favor. Using unfair practices to freeze out competition, getting sweetheart legislation pushed through Congress, buying influence.
And this never happens when the industries are run by the governments. Nah, you'd never have government cronyism replace private market cronyism, because we'd only employ the best, most honest people as our bureaucrats.
You free market preachers are just naive. The only free markets are also fair markets. And if you think what we have today is a fair market, you need to pass the bong. Government is the only entity that has the ability to groom a competitive marketplace. What we have today is what happens when government stops doing that job for 10 years. The rich get richer and there's no accountability for cheating. Economic collapse follows right after.
Rich getting richer? Hardly. Not anymore. What you have is a rogue government led not by the elected politicians, but by the bureaucrats people like you would empower even more. This government enforces laws not to provide justice, but to selectively punish those who provoke the ire of the petty bureaucrat. Obama coming into power hasn't changed anything (and if anything, his people are more corrupt than Bush's were).
When government has failed as badly as ours is in the process of doing, I don't think the solution is more government.
The difference is, when a government program fails, the solution is never terminating the program, but instead giving the program more money.
Talk about the most ridiculously overhyped invention in recent memory...for a damn scooter.
Some time in between the Super Bowl and the next season of Idol.
No. The US threatened these countries with economic sanctions if they did not comply.
Comply with what?
Anyway, just another bullshit lie from a left-wing drone.
Are you saying that Osama bin Laden was not trained by the US as an anti-communist guerrilla against the Soviets? Because that's an easily verifiable fact.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's a bald faced lie by the left. Since you are so handy with Wikipedia, you might want to look up OBL's entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_laden#Mujahideen_in_Afghanistan
Hint, no connection with the US and OBL. Thanks for playing moron. It's sad people like you get to vote and cancel out people who actually bother to be informed.