The Future of The USA

MusicAdventurer said:

Cop out answer if I've ever seen one; why don't you back up your claims... or do you not have any claims?

Click to expand...

Open your ears. Its on the page YOU linked, so why not quit with the ad hominems?

You know youre not doing yourself any favors because everyone else can click on YOUR link, just like I did, & find out those figures are self reported data from 1997, just like I did & then what do you think they'll make of your responses?

You dont like being helped do you?

cpwill said:

That is not correct - the US does indeed have the best medical care available in the world - which is why people come here. We simply pay for it through a flawed third-party-payment model, which makes it more expensive than necessary.

Click to expand...

I can plainly see that you agree with me. You can have all the healthcare you can afford, and that is what I said. To have the best medical care available is not the best medical care. That available word is a big qualifier. Again, I'm glad we finally agree on something even if you think we do not. Black is white in your world and that is OK by me. Must be a Republican, eh?

MusicAdventurer said:

I agree that D wouldn't work.

Click to expand...

he can be taught! rof

However, by free, obviously I meant, at no immediate cost to the patient or scholar etc. ; the cost is absorbed by the higher income levels - not including actual small businesses and people (not companies) making below 250K - I do agree with that income level marker from the left

Click to expand...

then you are incorrect - higher top marginal tax rates do not historically produce higher revenues. Instead, what we see in systems that operate as you propose is that the cost is borne by the low and low-middle income earners in the form of reduced availability. the upper income have the same loss of availability from the government system, but are still able to afford the private one, and a true two-tiered healthcare system emerges.

DaveFagan said:

I can plainly see that you agree with me. You can have all the healthcare you can afford, and that is what I said. To have the best medical care available is not the best medical care. That available word is a big qualifier.

Click to expand...

That is correct. To quote the Canadian Supreme Court when they struck down a portion of that nations' health care system, "Access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare". In the US, for example, advanced treatments and testing are far more widely available (and utilized) than in other systems, the type of which mr adventurer seems to be advocating for.

Again, I'm glad we finally agree on something even if you think we do not. Black is white in your world and that is OK by me. Must be a Republican, eh?

Click to expand...

Meh. I am fine with using the Republican party.

Paul Austin said:

Open your ears. Its on the page YOU linked, so why not quit with the ad hominems?

You know youre not doing yourself any favors because everyone else can click on YOUR link, just like I did, & find out those figures are self reported data from 1997, just like I did & then what do you think they'll make of your responses?

You dont like being helped do you?

Click to expand...

OK thanks for the help Paul Austin. I looked at the following link: WHO | World health report 2000 statistical annex a little more carefully and learned the following:

If you click on:

Annex Table 1: Health system attainment and performance in all Member States, ranked by eight measures, estimates for 1997

Click to expand...

You will get the World Health Organizations 2000 publication from which they made estimates on the healthcare systems in 1997.

You will find a publication that ranks the quality of healthcare in each country. It turns out that there are countries with far better healthcare systems than even Canada. In addition, the USA is listed 37th. Usually statistics like these do not change much in 10 or so years. It is likely that the US is higher now, but not that much higher. It is clear though, that you don't have to be number one economically to provide superior healthcare.

It should be noted that due to the huge controversy that resulted from the release, the world health organization declined to list countries in a ranking again, instead simply describing each countries healthcare systems in their latest reports. This in itself is kind of interesting... i.e. what kinds of pressure might an organization be under that would make them to decide to do away with this format?

Anyway, here is what we have. It is likely that things haven't changed all that much in this short period of time. Besides, the whole point of this was to point out that being number one economically doesn't necessarily mean one is number one healthcare wise.

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 USA
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand
42 Bahrain
43 Croatia
44 Qatar
45 Kuwait
46 Barbados
47 Thailand
48 Czech Republic
49 Malaysia
50 Poland

Click to expand...

Now Paul Austin... it is all out there, my point has been proven. Please, rather than trying to poke holes in a winning argument, try to contribute some evidence that is counter to my point.

MusicAdventurer said:

Now Paul Austin... it is all out there, my point has been proven.

Click to expand...

I think you will find it was MY point proven & that despite your ad hominems that your figures were 15 years old.

Btw. you havent dealt with self reporting yet.

Neomalthusian said:

It's a monumental task to purport to undertake (erasing the disadvantage of being born into an incompetent family). I do think creatively, but have to admit that the effective solutions are oppressive. I know about the horrors of the fetal alcohol spectrum, the impact of physical, emotional and sexual abuse, of growing up in a drug-abusing home, et cetera. I have thought creatively about how to stamp that out. "Providing education" doesn't do squat. You have to get serious if you really care to achieve that goal (erasing the disadvantage of being born to incompetents). Getting serious means getting oppressive.

Click to expand...

Those are all great issues that you have brought up. What most people don't realize, is that these kinds of situations are brought about by individuals responding to their environment in the only way they know how to. What is requires is a change in environment along with education and perhaps a few semi-oppressive policies. We don't have to go straight to oppression. There are other ways.

Neomalthusian said:

I don't think you're understanding all the aspects of that issue, given how simply you're looking at it.

Click to expand...

Sometimes the simplest answers are best - (Occam's razor). But please, lets complicate things a little, do share what you have in mind....

Neomalthusian said:

Absolutely, except that it's financially nonviable to pour resources into everyone when 0.00001% of them will become valuable to the degree that athletes are. The reason not everyone is successful has relatively little to do with being too dumb/uneducated, and a lot more to do with the supply of and demand for expert labor.

Click to expand...

I agree with you to a degree. It is not viable to pour out resources in the same manner that we do to athletes because the money just isn't there. But there is some money there. That poster's idea may have been a little exaggerated, but its got creativity points.

Neomalthusian said:

Well apparently it's because you move the goalposts.

Click to expand...

When I talk about true equality of opportunity, I am not talking about true equality of outcome. True equality of opportunity seems to be most likely found in option C or between option B and C. Option D is where the vastly different equality of outcome is found.

Paul Austin said:

I think you will find it was MY point proven & that despite your ad hominems that your figures were 15 years old. Btw. you havent dealt with self reporting yet.

Click to expand...

Sure you were right about the year... however, not right about what you were trying to prove wrong. That is, the evidence given shows that it does not take a number one economy to create number one healthcare. Bottom line.

cpwill said:

then you are incorrect - higher top marginal tax rates do not historically produce higher revenues. Instead, what we see in systems that operate as you propose is that the cost is borne by the low and low-middle income earners in the form of reduced availability. the upper income have the same loss of availability from the government system, but are still able to afford the private one, and a true two-tiered healthcare system emerges.

Click to expand...

Please enlighten us with examples

cpwill said:

That is correct. To quote the Canadian Supreme Court when they struck down a portion of that nations' health care system, "Access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare". In the US, for example, advanced treatments and testing are far more widely available (and utilized) than in other systems, the type of which mr adventurer seems to be advocating for.

Click to expand...

If this is true... then why would the World Health Organization list the healthcare systems in the way they did? Its hard to believe that they were just bumbling idiots throwing out numbers for the controversy of it. The only way to prove your point is to show evidence cpwill.

MusicAdventurer said:

Sure you were right about the year... however, not right about what you were trying to prove wrong.

Click to expand...

What I was trying to prove wrong was your figures, which I did.

Not sure why you added the rest as it had nothing to do with anything Ive said in this thread as anyone who cares to read the thread can see.

MusicAdventurer said:

I agree that D wouldn't work.

However, by free, obviously I meant, at no immediate cost to the patient or scholar etc. ; the cost is absorbed by the higher income levels - not including actual small businesses and people (not companies) making below 250K - I do agree with that income level marker from the left

Click to expand...

With paid education, there is no net cost because each graduate contributes half a million dollars to the economy even under our defective class-biased system.

MusicAdventurer said:

Good










If people and their talents are valuable like athletes are, why wouldn't it be a good thing?

Click to expand...

Baseball pays bonuses for school players who mostly never return anything on the investment. The value put on those who do make it to the majors is so high that it more than covers the losses on those who don't make it.

The economic bullies who formerly controlled baseball were so afraid of rewarding their slaves for talent that they instituted a Bonus Baby Rule that punished teams defying indentured servitude by forcing them to keep rookie signees on the major league roster for a year.

I would have to say there's a lot of the richest nations in the world as well as the strongest militaries in the world that fall into option C....of course I understand you want people to make some sort of trade off but in reality a trade off doesn't exist.

when people suffer from social injustice ,being a world power has no meaning ,in my opinion.

Neomalthusian said:

I don't think you're understanding all the aspects of that issue, given how simply you're looking at it.



Absolutely, except that it's financially nonviable to pour resources into everyone when 0.00001% of them will become valuable to the degree that athletes are.

Click to expand...

Your bitterness about having to live like a 15-year-old working without pay in college leads you to lash out not at the economic bullies who required you to do that, but at those who refused to submit to such self-destructive indentured servitude. Likewise motivated by resentment, you create strawmen by saying that only a tiny percentage will contribute huge amounts to society. The more important ratio is that even today's Diplomaed Dumboes produced by our class-biased education contribute half a million dollars each to the economy during their working lives; giving effective incentives will produce more talented graduates capable of producing a million dollars each for the rest of us. It should only cost an average of $200,000 to finance paid professional training, netting us $800,000 for each talent rewarded. It's insulting to call today's top students "gifted"; they have to give their all before getting anything back for years of indentured servitude. "Work now, get paid for it years from now" is a financially nonviable incentive.

MusicAdventurer said:

Those are all great issues that you have brought up. What most people don't realize, is that these kinds of situations are brought about by individuals responding to their environment in the only way they know how to. What is requires is a change in environment along with education and perhaps a few semi-oppressive policies. We don't have to go straight to oppression. There are other ways.

Click to expand...

One cannot simply "change the environment" to accommodate all people, especially not with 7-8 billion of them. It would require such unfathomable control of people to eradicate their various disadvantages that it's a fool's errand. Do we spend $10/day on various strategies to raise 10 people's pay by ten cents/day? That's a simple math problem, and the answer is no. That's the Achilles' Heel of altruistic liberal philosophies. The goal sounds benevolent, so therefore we must implement it (while disregarding cost and thus NET benefit). There are wild assumptions out there about how there is this linear process of showering money (or other benefit that costs money) onto people without it and therefore causing a snowball effect of goodness. Trouble is, people without money are never simply without money. They are without all sorts of tools (financial, mental/cognitive, emotional, educational, etc. etc. etc.) that would allow them to be self-sufficient. Equality of outcome is an elusive thing to pursue, but people pursue it anyway and convince themselves they're not.

Sometimes the simplest answers are best - (Occam's razor). But please, lets complicate things a little, do share what you have in mind....

Click to expand...

To another thread. This is ballooning.

I agree with you to a degree. It is not viable to pour out resources in the same manner that we do to athletes because the money just isn't there. But there is some money there. That poster's idea may have been a little exaggerated, but its got creativity points.

Click to expand...

Sometimes there is a fine line between creativity and financial delusion.

When I talk about true equality of opportunity, I am not talking about true equality of outcome. True equality of opportunity seems to be most likely found in option C or between option B and C. Option D is where the vastly different equality of outcome is found.

Click to expand...

I think a lot of people (politically/philosophically liberal, usually) are seeing inequality of outcome and then automatically assuming there was inequality of opportunity. One team always wins in a game... but does that mean they MUST have had unequal opportunity? Hmmmmmmmm......

PrometheusBound said:

Your bitterness about having to live like a 15-year-old working without pay in college leads you to lash out not at the economic bullies who required you to do that, but at those who refused to submit to such self-destructive indentured servitude.

Click to expand...

I have no ****ing clue what you think you're talking about there.

Likewise motivated by resentment, you create strawmen by saying that only a tiny percentage will contribute huge amounts to society.

Click to expand...

That's not what I said, so the straw man is yours. Elite athletes who earn millions per year are an infinitesimal percentage of all athletes, let alone all PEOPLE, but nonetheless you advised that we should invest in all people the same as we invest in elite athletes. A tiny percentage of people have the sort of potential that would make them worth that investment. You don't put everyone through Michael Phelps' training regimen and get a bunch of Michael Phelpses. You don't put everyone through Harvard Medical School and result in the same caliber of doctor as the guy who got a full ride to Harvard Med on his own merit. Your ideas are just squirrely and then you come after me with your own ad hominems and straw men.

The more important ratio is that even today's Diplomaed Dumboes produced by our class-biased education contribute half a million dollars each to the economy during their working lives; giving effective incentives will produce more talented graduates capable of producing a million dollars each for the rest of us. It should only cost an average of $200,000 to finance paid professional training, netting us $800,000 for each talent rewarded. It's insulting to call today's top students "gifted"; they have to give their all before getting anything back for years of indentured servitude. "Work now, get paid for it years from now" is a financially nonviable incentive.

Click to expand...

So now we have the guy suggesting we should just produce money out of thin air to fund education indiscriminately starting to talk about financial non-viability... maybe we're getting somewhere. Or maybe not.

Medusa said:

when people suffer from social injustice ,being a world power has no meaning ,in my opinion.

Click to expand...

to some lefties that can mean if someone makes more than average and another makes less

Neomalthusian said:

One cannot simply "change the environment" to accommodate all people, especially not with 7-8 billion of them. It would require such unfathomable control of people to eradicate their various disadvantages that it's a fool's errand. Do we spend $10/day on various strategies to raise 10 people's pay by ten cents/day? That's a simple math problem, and the answer is no. That's the Achilles' Heel of altruistic liberal philosophies. The goal sounds benevolent, so therefore we must implement it (while disregarding cost and thus NET benefit). There are wild assumptions out there about how there is this linear process of showering money (or other benefit that costs money) onto people without it and therefore causing a snowball effect of goodness.

Click to expand...

Clearly you are not privy to how I believe the environment can be changed for the better. Its all about incentives and proper policies. Find a behavior that you want to see and reward it. Simple behavioral tactics. I like how you are starting to get what I am saying in your post below....

Neomalthusian said:

Trouble is, people without money are never simply without money. They are without all sorts of tools (financial, mental/cognitive, emotional, educational, etc. etc. etc.) that would allow them to be self-sufficient.

Click to expand...

Now you are getting somewhere. You are starting to understand that having a sense of financial security (one that is dependent upon hard and/or smart work), having strong mental and cognitive characteristics (something that can be accomplished by alleviating the large burdens many face in concert with adequate mental health care - also teaching values is important), and also making sure everyone is educated. These are all great things and I am glad you pointed them out. It seems we are finding common ground here. We must realize that people are a product of their environment and people do the best they can with what they know. People aren't trying to make problems, they are trying to move forward; however, our system and society is somewhat limited in how we allow our citizens to do this and what resources we allow them to use to do this.

Neomalthusian said:

Equality of outcome is an elusive thing to pursue, but people pursue it anyway and convince themselves they're not.

Click to expand...

I could not agree more with you. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that seeking equality of outcome is a fools errand. There are no incentives that way. This is not to say that income levels shouldn't be much closer than they are today, but to say that there does need to be some differences so that people have incentives.

Neomalthusian said:

I think a lot of people (politically/philosophically liberal, usually) are seeing inequality of outcome and then automatically assuming there was inequality of opportunity. One team always wins in a game... but does that mean they MUST have had unequal opportunity? Hmmmmmmmm......

Click to expand...

I am not sure where you are going with this... are you saying I am liberal? If so, are you implying that I would think this? As I mentioned above.... seeking equality of outcome is a fools errand, not that the income gap couldn't be significantly reduced, but just that there needs to be incentives and some level of economic separation. We just need to regulate things so that monopolies aren't created and so that the world isn't run by the greediest most power hungry people and corporations. That route only leads to problems. Free market with regulations is best.

TurtleDude said:

to some lefties that can mean if someone makes more than average and another makes less

Click to expand...

TurtleDude... to some lefties I think you would be correct about that... however, I wonder what percentage that is? I think what most people have a problem with is the artificial wealth that some hoard out of greed and insecurity while others are struggling to find healthy meals and shelter due to systemic problems.

We must remember that we are all human and we are all simply responding the best way we know how, to our environment. The evils of the world are a reflection of the interaction of humanity and the environment/system in which they live/face. If more people realized that, I believe the world would be a much better place.

It is important to note that the greedy, hoarders are also a product of their environment and aren't evil; they are just doing what they know how to do due to the environment they grew up in etc. A lot of their problem lies in their insecurities and lack of appropriate social interaction. Being wealthy brings its own demons. I don't think enough time is spent talking about that aspect of things either. For example, simply being wealthy can make many people feel lonely. To fill that hole, many try very hard to fill it with more money.

The problem is that in our EEA (environment of evolutionary adaptedness), such severe wealth differentials were not possible. Therefore, in a relatively short period of time (i.e. from when people first started using money and hoarding it), huge differentials in power (i.e. money differentials) have been able to occur with little time for humanity to evolve in response. In other words, we used to live in small tribes, were there was a certain degree of order, but that was also somewhat flexible or different members had different strengths. However, it is likely that not many people had the kinds of power over others that we see today. In addition, even those who were higher in the social hierarchy were still not ostracized from the group. Do to the flexibility and changeability of the power in these social hierarchies, people remained close, socially. This is not what we see today. Thus, the wealthy try to fill their social holes with money, snuffing those out beneath them. The only way to fix this problem is to bring the classes closer together; to get everyone interacting again. One of the ways to do this is to decrease the income differences we observe.

MusicAdventurer said:

TurtleDude... to some lefties I think you would be correct about that... however, I wonder what percentage that is? I think what most people have a problem with is the artificial wealth that some hoard out of greed and insecurity while others are struggling to find health meals and shelter due to systemic problems. We must remember that we are all human and we are all simply responding the best way we know how, to our environment. The evils of the world are a reflection of the interaction of humanity and the environment/system in which they live/face. If more people realized that, I believe the world would be a much better place. The greedy, hoarders are also a product of their environment and aren't evil; they are just doing what they know how to do due to the environment they grew up in etc. A lot of their problem lies in their insecurities and lack of appropriate social interaction. Being wealthy brings its own demons. I don't think enough time is spent talking about that aspect of things either. For example, simply being wealthy can make many people feel lonely. To fill that hole, many try very hard to fill it with more money. The problem is that in our EEA (environment of evolutionary adaptedness), such severe wealth differentials were not possible. Therefore, in a relatively short period of time (i.e. from when people first started using money and hoarding it), huge differentials in power (i.e. money differentials) have been able to occur with little time for humanity to evolve in response. In other words, we used to live in small tribes, were there was a certain degree of order, but that was also somewhat flexible or different members had different strengths. However, it is likely that not many people had the kinds of power over others that we see today. In addition, even those who were higher in the social hierarchy were still not ostracized from the group. Do to the flexibility and changeability of the power in these social hierarchies, people remained close, socially. This is not what we see today. Thus, the wealthy try to fill their social holes with money, snuffing those out beneath them. The only way to fix this problem is to bring the classes closer together; to get everyone interacting again. One of the ways to do this is to decrease the income differences we observe.

Click to expand...

Here is what I have a problem with

1) the left constantly talking about a few hundred uber wealthy and using them as a model for punitive taxes being levied on EVERYONE in the top one or two percent.

2) thinking that anyone who is wealthy someone cheated others. this sort of attitude is common on this board

3) pretending that most wealthy people are wall street investment bankers rather than understanding that many of us are wealthy due to years and years of saving and sacrificing. Years of making conservative investments in solid blue chip companies. Years of not spending more than one takes in. Yet we are demonized as somehow merely being lucky or dishonest.

4) and the most idiotic of all-envious people who pretend that they are "helping the wealthy" by taking money from them and the "evils that come from wealth". Cut the BS, that is absolute nonsense.

this is my view of taxing the 1-2%:

roflpublican said:

this is my view of taxing the 1-2%:
View attachment 67137434

Click to expand...

I would advocate violent removal of office of any politician who advocates taxes over 50%

TurtleDude said:

I would advocate violent removal of office of any politician who advocates taxes over 50%

Click to expand...

providing we introduce a tax on 'money sitting idle in bank accounts, aka hoarding and keeping capital out of the economy' over a certain amount, i'd agree.