• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Health Rankings: Of 17 Nations, U.S. Is Dead Last

Re: We're Number......LAST

presluc said:
I will agree it has been slow but not as slow as the past 12 years.:peace
Click to expand...

I am more hopeful than I was 12 years ago! :)
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

apdst said:
That's a by-product of Liberalism.
Click to expand...

That is a by-product of the political system .

Republican , Democrat, Libertarian, Green, there are no clean hands in any party.
If you wish to follow the politicians of D.C. with their "BLAME GAME SHUFFLE AND NOT MY FAULT DANCE" that is your right.

As for me I stand by my words there is no Republican party or Democrat party only people and people makes mistakes ALL PEOPLE MAKES MISTAKES.
The real problem is getting somebody in politics to take responsibility for their mistakes
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

presluc said:
That is a by-product of the political system .

Republican , Democrat, Libertarian, Green, there are no clean hands in any party.
If you wish to follow the politicians of D.C. with their "BLAME GAME SHUFFLE AND NOT MY FAULT DANCE" that is your right.

As for me I stand by my words there is no Republican party or Democrat party only people and people makes mistakes ALL PEOPLE MAKES MISTAKES.
The real problem is getting somebody in politics to take responsibility for their mistakes
Click to expand...

Yes, however, the culture of no-personal-responsibility in this country lies squarely at the Left's doorstep.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

apdst said:
Yes, however, the culture of no-personal-responsibility in this country lies squarely at the Left's doorstep.
Click to expand...

So that's sounds an awful lot like the "BLAME GAME SHUFFLE AND NOT MY FAULT DANCE " to me, cause not too long ago I had a Democrat tell me that the lack of responsibility lies squarely at the Rights doorstep.

Are you telling me that the Republicans take responsibility for every mistake they make?
Or are you telling me that Republicans make no mistakes?

Are you telling me that the Democrats take responsibility for every mistake they make?
Or are you telling me that Democrats don't make mistakes.?

Next you'll be telling me only Democrats make mistakes or only Republicans make mistakes??

Either way when was the last time you heard a political leader take responsibility for anything?
So I guess neither party is making any mistakes right? lol,lol,lol:peace
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

presluc said:
A majority of who.
The majority of people living in America are unskilled workers unskilled work is being outsourced
America posted the creation of 700,000 new jobs
We have amnesty for 800,000 illegal immigrants.
Do the math?
Who is the majority and who is the minority in America ?
Hint think 10%,:peace
Click to expand...

Just off the top of my head and going from numbers I heard the Obama set echo during the debate for Obamacare - 40 million were uninsured. Our population is over 300 million. Sounds to me like the vast majority were insured already.

Edit: I see from the census that in 2009 50 million were uninsured and that 37 million of those were employment age.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

clownboy said:
Just off the top of my head and going from numbers I heard the Obama set echo during the debate for Obamacare - 40 million were uninsured. Our population is over 300 million. Sounds to me like the vast majority were insured already.

Edit: I see from the census that in 2009 50 million were uninsured and that 37 million of those were employment age.
Click to expand...

The old "I got mine, you get yours" mentality. I'm guessing your "other" you picked for a lean is not progressive, is it? :cool:
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Catawba said:
The old "I got mine, you get yours" mentality. I'm guessing your "other" you picked for a lean is not progressive, is it? :cool:
Click to expand...

Not the point. Read back in the thread and find the context, you'll see how you got it wrong.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

clownboy said:
Not the point. Read back in the thread and find the context, you'll see how you got it wrong.
Click to expand...

I've been keeping up with the thread, and I got it right.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Catawba said:
I've been keeping up with the thread, and I got it right.
Click to expand...

It was my point, so I know what context it was made in and to whom and what I was replying. Look again, you got it wrong.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

clownboy said:
It was my point, so I know what context it was made in and to whom and what I was replying. Look again, you got it wrong.
Click to expand...

I've got mine, you get yours, is the point that came across.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

clownboy said:
Just off the top of my head and going from numbers I heard the Obama set echo during the debate for Obamacare - 40 million were uninsured. Our population is over 300 million. Sounds to me like the vast majority were insured already.

Edit: I see from the census that in 2009 50 million were uninsured and that 37 million of those were employment age.
Click to expand...

It is my opinion {though it may be wrong} that the census taken is incorrect.
Time after time we as a society are told the unemployment rate is based on those seeking employment.
Yet what of those that shall we say fell through the cracks.
Of America's population of over 300 million are they all accounted for?
What of people living on the streets?
What of the illegal immigrants with amnesty?
What of the Americans that are off the grid?

These questions may be right or wrong, may be good or bad.
However to have the correct majority or minority, one must first have the correct number to go by.:peace
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Who is counted as employed?

Not all of the wide range of job situations in the American economy fit neatly into a given category. For example, people are considered employed if they did any work at all for pay or profit during the survey week. This includes all part-time and temporary work, as well as regular full-time, year-round employment. Persons also are counted as employed if they have a job at which they did not work during the survey week, whether they were paid or not, because they were:

On vacation
Ill
Experiencing child-care problems
Taking care of some other family or personal obligation
On maternity or paternity leave
Involved in an industrial dispute
Prevented from working by bad weather

These persons are counted among the employed and tabulated separately as "with a job but not at work," because they have a specific job to which they will return.

But what about the two following cases?

George Lewis is 16 years old, and he has no job from which he receives any pay or profit. However, George does help with the regular chores around his father's farm and spends about 20 hours each week doing so.


Lisa Fox spends most of her time taking care of her home and children, but she helps in her husband's computer software store all day Friday and Saturday.

Under the Government's definition of employment, both George and Lisa are considered employed. They fall into a group called "unpaid family workers," which includes any person who worked without pay for 15 hours or more per week in a family-owned enterprise operated by someone in their household.
Click to expand...

So, "employed" does not necessarily mean working full time for wages.

If all of the people who have given up and taken part time work were to be counted, then the unemployment rate would be a lot higher than it is.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Dittohead not! said:
Who is counted as employed?



So, "employed" does not necessarily mean working full time for wages.

If all of the people who have given up and taken part time work were to be counted, then the unemployment rate would be a lot higher than it is.
Click to expand...

I think it would , of course talking about working people paying income tax would be lower.:peace
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

DVSentinel said:
Don't know, I'm not a right winger.
Click to expand...
Suit yourself.

I am not a crook.
-- Richard Nixon

DVSentinel said:
BTW. What does the price of gas have to do with medical care?
Click to expand...
It was one of those analogy things...where yiou create similar conditions under perhaps more familar circumstances. The fact remains that we in the US are paying top dollar for near bottom of the barrel health care. That needs to stop.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Dittohead not! said:
Who is counted as employed?



So, "employed" does not necessarily mean working full time for wages.

If all of the people who have given up and taken part time work were to be counted, then the unemployment rate would be a lot higher than it is.
Click to expand...

Using that metric Bush would have had about 6% unemployment. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Dittohead not! said:
So, "employed" does not necessarily mean working full time for wages.
Click to expand...
It never has.

Dittohead not! said:
If all of the people who have given up and taken part time work were to be counted, then the unemployment rate would be a lot higher than it is.
Click to expand...
If we moved the age cutoff from 16 to 4, the rate would be a lot higher than it is also. The reason that there are standardized definitions that have been applied over long periods of time is so that data from one period will be comparable to data from another period. Changing the numbers to suit every new political wind that blows along would simply be foolish.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Cardinal Fang said:
It never has.


If we moved the age cutoff from 16 to 4, the rate would be a lot higher than it is also. The reason that there are standardized definitions that have been applied over long periods of time is so that data from one period will be comparable to data from another period. Changing the numbers to suit every new political wind that blows along would simply be foolish.
Click to expand...

Yes, it would.
As would pretending that 8% unemployment means that 92% of the people who want to work full time are doing so.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Cardinal Fang said:
It was one of those analogy things...where yiou create similar conditions under perhaps more familar circumstances. The fact remains that we in the US are paying top dollar for near bottom of the barrel health care. That needs to stop.
Click to expand...

I don't see us paying top dollar for near bottom of the barrel health care. Our health care is great. The costs are high, sure, but that is as much because we waste money on those who have not earned it as on anything else. You are making a judgment based upon statistics that do not present the full picture but are targeted to present a certain point of view. To get the whole picture, you have to take in the vast number of other factors that affect those figures, not just health care.

Mr. Dittohead has expressed that he doesn't believe it would be affordable even if we removed the leeches. I however believe it would be. It was before we changed the laws allowing leeching. Would it be affordable to minimum wage earners, probably not, but then, have they actually earned it since they choose to stay at the bottom tier of employment? I don't thinks so.

We also cannot make reasonable and affordable changes to healthcare without address many other factors in our society. We need to fix our approach to the economy and many other things, as well as our approach to healthcare.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Dittohead not! said:
Yes, it would. As would pretending that 8% unemployment means that 92% of the people who want to work full time are doing so.
Click to expand...
Why would anyone make such a foolish assumption? The only possibility I can think of quickly would be total unfamiliarity with the data and any of the concepts underlying them. Children should not play with matches.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

DVSentinel said:
I don't see us paying top dollar for near bottom of the barrel health care.
Click to expand...
The blind fail to see a lot of things.

DVSentinel said:
Our health care is great. The costs are high, sure, but that is as much because we waste money on those who have not earned it as on anything else. You are making a judgment based upon statistics that do not present the full picture but are targeted to present a certain point of view. To get the whole picture, you have to take in the vast number of other factors that affect those figures, not just health care. Mr. Dittohead has expressed that he doesn't believe it would be affordable even if we removed the leeches. I however believe it would be. It was before we changed the laws allowing leeching. Would it be affordable to minimum wage earners, probably not, but then, have they actually earned it since they choose to stay at the bottom tier of employment? I don't thinks so. We also cannot make reasonable and affordable changes to healthcare without address many other factors in our society. We need to fix our approach to the economy and many other things, as well as our approach to healthcare.
Click to expand...
And the deaf and dumb don't make much progress either.

Health care is not the equivalent of driving a Lexus, Your Imperiousness. Your arguments are those of a self-appointed, self-deluded elitist. Actual elites oppose every word you have just said. They tend to exhibit strong desires to give back to their communities and to better the lives of those less fortunate than themselves. You've a long, long way to go before you reach their level.

And contrary to your every baseless supposition, virtually all other developed countries in the world do manage to deliver higher quality health care to nearly all of their residents at a much lower per capita cost. Clearly, they have discovered between something and a great deal more than you have about all this.
 
Last edited:
Re: We're Number......LAST

presluc said:
It is my opinion {though it may be wrong} that the census taken is incorrect.
Time after time we as a society are told the unemployment rate is based on those seeking employment.
Click to expand...
Because it's true.

Yet what of those that shall we say fell through the cracks.
Click to expand...
What about them?
Of America's population of over 300 million are they all accounted for?
Click to expand...
Labor Force Statistics only use the Adult Civilian Non-Institutional Population: those age 16 and older who are not active duty military, not in prison, and not in an institution (mental institute, assisted living facility, etc). That is currently at 244,350,000
What of people living on the streets?
Click to expand...
Since the Current Population Survey is a Household Survey, the homeless cannot be counted. Homeless shelters are not in the survey either because they're simply too volatile.
What of the illegal immigrants with amnesty?
Click to expand...
The survey doesn't aske immigration status or citizenship. Illegal aliens are thus included.
What of the Americans that are off the grid?
Click to expand...
The survey is by address and initial interviews are in person. But someone off the grid will most likely be a non-response in the survey.

These questions may be right or wrong, may be good or bad.
However to have the correct majority or minority, one must first have the correct number to go by.:peace
Click to expand...
To get the right answer, you must first ask the right question.

What is the purpose of the Unemployment rate? Is it a measure of poverty? Hardship?
No. It's simply a measure of the Labor Market: what percent of people willing and trying to work are failing. Paris Hilton looking for another reality show would be classified as Unemployed.

People not trying to work do not affect the labor market and tell us little to nothing about it.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

pinqy said:
Because it's true.

What about them?

Labor Force Statistics only use the Adult Civilian Non-Institutional Population: those age 16 and older who are not active duty military, not in prison, and not in an institution (mental institute, assisted living facility, etc). That is currently at 244,350,000
Since the Current Population Survey is a Household Survey, the homeless cannot be counted. Homeless shelters are not in the survey either because they're simply too volatile.
The survey doesn't aske immigration status or citizenship. Illegal aliens are thus included.
The survey is by address and initial interviews are in person. But someone off the grid will most likely be a non-response in the survey.


To get the right answer, you must first ask the right question.

What is the purpose of the Unemployment rate? Is it a measure of poverty? Hardship?
No. It's simply a measure of the Labor Market: what percent of people willing and trying to work are failing. Paris Hilton looking for another reality show would be classified as Unemployed.

People not trying to work do not affect the labor market and tell us little to nothing about it.
Click to expand...

As you say "to get the right answer ask the right question".

With so many people not looking for employment there should be an over abundance of jobs in the labor force , there is not why?:peace
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Cardinal Fang said:
The blind fail to see a lot of things.


And the deaf and dumb don't make much progress either.

Health care is not the equivalent of driving a Lexus, Your Imperiousness. Your arguments are those of a self-appointed, self-deluded elitist. Actual elites oppose every word you have just said. They tend to exhibit strong desires to give back to their communities and to better the lives of those less fortunate than themselves. You've a long, long way to go before you reach their level.

And contrary to your every baseless supposition, virtually all other developed countries in the world do manage to deliver higher quality health care to nearly all of their residents at a much lower per capita cost. Clearly, they have discovered between something and a great deal more than you have about all this.
Click to expand...

Bah, who wants a Lexus? Jap Junk. Go with Cadillac for class of car.

Thank you for the insults btw, I appreciate it.

Now. The supposition that one does not give back to community or that one who does not support UHC is not interested in bettering the lives of those less fortunate than themselves, that is a bunch of BS. In fact, it is in the interest of bettering the "less fortunate" that I do not support UHC, welfare, medicaid, etc. When one wishes to build strength, that person does not ignore or make excuses for weakness. No, one does what is necessary to exercise the weakness. In the case of the "less fortunate", no one is helping them by giving them anything free. You help them by making the work for what the need and want and thus build their strength until they can stand on their own. The less we give, including Healthcare, just motivates them to seek out all opportunities to better themselves. Approximately 15% of our population live in poverty, and that includes some that make a little above minimum wage. That 15% is bankrupting the rest of us and most of them are at the bottom because they chose to be, not because they have to be. If not giving the adult portion of that 15% healthcare motivates them to seek out and work for opportunities, then denying it to them is doing them good.

The true cost of our healthcare can not be determined until we remove that 15% and all statistics related to that 15%. Keep in mind, that societal factors, obesity rates, diabetes, high cholesterol, poor diet and others (all of which we lead the world in) also have a factor in the cost and the statistics of our healthcare. If you cannot realize that, then you are just being simple minded.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

presluc said:
As you say "to get the right answer ask the right question".

With so many people not looking for employment there should be an over abundance of jobs in the labor force ,
Click to expand...
Why do you think that? there are 12 million people trying and failing to get jobs, so why would people who don't want to work make an abundance of jobs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom