Trump Effects

[Butch]

8 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Take it one... step... further, and realize that the "poor, but expensive job of administering it" has largely been engineered by the Republicans to make it look bad so they can reduce/remove it. It's like stepping on someone's throat and then pointing out how the lazy bastard won't even try to get up. You can't accurately judge the value of a program when those who don't believe in it are in charge of it. 

They've done the same with every program that could help the vast majority, especially health, education, and welfare. Make them look bad so they can opt out of doing their part to pay for them.

I have an idea! Why don't we actually try to make healthcare, education, and welfare effective by removing all the hobbles the GOP have placed on them, and see if that doesn't make things better? It works in reality all the time. You come up with a great idea, get smart people to make it happen, and work hard to make it the best it can be.

First we need to drain the swamp Dems and Reps. You should understand that polarization is a very old strategy,...

5 hours ago, rangerx said:

Armies don't make Trump's lies true. The American economy favors the rich and penalizes the poor. America is among the worst for healthcare, education and self slaughter from improper gun handling. Americans are prisoners in their own home. There's not enough locks or guns to protect yourselves from yourselves.

America is no leader. Certainly not mine.

 

 

We have the very best healthcare on the planet!

[rangerx]

9 minutes ago, Butch said:

We have the very best healthcare on the planet!

The most ridiculous thing I've read since I've signed up.  Even surpassing most fly-by-night crackpots that fail this forum.

[Butch]

5 hours ago, rangerx said:

Nobody disputes America's military might. It's current leadership that leaves little to be desired.

Globally, America is diminished in it's trustworthiness. No amount of rhetoric will change that any time soon, other than for the worse.

Our government is corrupt, unbelievably corrupt, regardless the party... The Bushes are crooks and so are the Clintons. The world wants America back, so do Americans! It is not about party, So please quit blinding yourselves with that game. I did not vote for Trump because he is a republican(he is not), people voted for Trump in the hope that he can break up the game in Washington! 

Capitol Hill has taken notice and many more heads are going to roll, either by executive action or by the will of the people!

Talking party loyalty or social agendas is useless until we get rid of the stench in Washington, then we can look to helping the rest of the world.

[Phi for All]

16 minutes ago, Butch said:

First we need to drain the swamp Dems and Reps. You should understand that polarization is a very old strategy,...

Trump isn't draining any swamps. He's just filling them with branded corruptions. 

19 minutes ago, Butch said:

We have the very best healthcare on the planet!

We have the worst maternal mortality rate of any industrialized nation!

4 minutes ago, Butch said:

Our government is corrupt, unbelievably corrupt, regardless the party... The Bushes are crooks and so are the Clintons. The world wants America back, so do Americans! It is not about party, So please quit blinding yourselves with that game. I did not vote for Trump because he is a republican(he is not), people voted for Trump in the hope that he can break up the game in Washington! 

Capitol Hill has taken notice and many more heads are going to roll, either by executive action or by the will of the people!

Talking party loyalty or social agendas is useless until we get rid of the stench in Washington, then we can look to helping the rest of the world.

If you can recognize this, why can't you see that Trump is only wearing sheep's clothing? 

[Butch]

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Trump isn't draining any swamps. He's just filling them with branded corruptions. 

We have the worst maternal mortality rate of any industrialized nation!

https://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=2223

[Phi for All]

10 minutes ago, Butch said:

https://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=2223

I said industrialized nations, not the whole world. Do you understand?

If you'd bothered to try to understand my point and read the excellent NPR article, you'd see that a woman in the US is three times more likely to die in childbirth than a woman in Canada. We are at the bottom as far as developed countries. So how can you say we have the best healthcare in the world? We pay 2-4 times what other countries pay for healthcare and it's below the standards of many of them.

[StringJunky]

54 minutes ago, Butch said:

We have the very best healthcare on the planet!

Dream on...2014 numbers:

[Ten oz]

3 hours ago, Butch said:

I did not vote for Trump because he is a republican(he is not),

Actually he is. Trump is a registered Republican party member. That is an indisputable fact. You can carry on about they way you think he behaves compared to whomever in the past but none of that changes anything. Trump is a Republican and only Republicans in Congress have been supporting his policies. 

[Strange]

9 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Dream on...2014 numbers:

The bizarre thing about this is, from what I have seen, not only do the insurance companies spend far more (per capita) than, say, the NHS but the US government also spends far more than the NHS per capita. So it is a double failure. The NHS is struggling but it works pretty well - and provides universal health care. So why does the supposedly more efficient capitalist/competitive system in the USA work so badly? I think because there are so many people opposed on principle to the idea of helping everyone, whatever their circumstances. It is the cult of individuality gone mad.

[John Cuthber]

10 hours ago, Butch said:

 

We have the very best healthcare on the planet!

You need to think back to where you heard that from.

Now it has been made clear to you that the US does not- by any sensible measure- have the very best healthcare on the planet you need to realise that what you were told is not true.

And you now need to put those two facts together.

The source that told you that the US has the best healthcare lied to you.

So, unless you want to deliberately avoid the truth, you should stop listening to that source.

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

The bizarre thing about this is, from what I have seen, not only do the insurance companies spend far more (per capita) than, say, the NHS but the US government also spends far more than the NHS per capita. So it is a double failure. The NHS is struggling but it works pretty well - and provides universal health care. So why does the supposedly more efficient capitalist/competitive system in the USA work so badly? I think because there are so many people opposed on principle to the idea of helping everyone, whatever their circumstances. It is the cult of individuality gone mad.

Yes,  the government cost and voluntary cost is about half each in the US. Our government cost is about $3750 (in 2014) with no more patient costs and the US is about $4600 government costs plus the same for the patient. It's nearer $10 000 now total in the US. The reason they fail is because there is a sizeable profit element in their health services and also those service providers have to show growth in order to attract new investment. This necessitates putting the prices up artificially and on a periodic basis. The shareholder/private model can not work in the essential infrastructure services. It can only lead to rising prices; look at our UK rail and water prices, for two examples.

Edited.

Edited December 29, 2017 by StringJunky

[Raider5678]

16 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Quality of life is tough to measure because a lot of it is relative but the U.S. isn't  in the top 10 nations for quality of life:

 https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/07/these-countries-have-the-highest-quality-of-life

 

More easily measured is life expectancy which is important as I think most of us would prefer a long life over a shorter one. Again the U.S. isn't in the top 10:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/world-health-statistics-2014/en/

 

Then there is the way people feel about their lives. Among the happiest nations surveyed the U.S. is again not in the top 10:

 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/top-10/2016-worlds-happiest-countries/

 

If people in the U.S. aren't any happier, don't have a better quality of life, and aren't living any longer than those in places like Canada than what is the perk of a world leadership title? Yes, our military is mighty and Finland's isn't but what appreciable benefit is that providing the average person?

 

For the quality of life link, New Zealand got tenth because due to it's small population there is a massive demand for jobs. Considering the United States is much bigger then New Zealand you could also argue that you should split the United States into multiple countries to increase their quality of life. 

The Netherland's got 8th because they are the most tolerant nation in the world in terms of what's legal and what's not. In the United States that heavily varies by state, again, a massive disadvantage simply because of our size.

Sweden got 6th because it has a 99.77% in water sanitation, something that is considered rare for most of the world. And once again, considering how massive the United States is, as well as different state law's, it can be hard to consider it the best in anything. I'm curious if you'd look at individual states. Finland has 5.49 million people, Pennslyvania alone has 12 million. I'd think it'd be fair to look at these from a state by state to country level, wouldn't you?

Finland scores virtually perfect in every single field. But then that make's me wonder how accurate this scale is because while I don't really doubt Finland is a better place to live compared to most of the world, it's also as you said, relative.  The United States has so many more people than Finland, and our law varies so much from state to state I'm curious as to how they managed to measure it.

 

 

Now for life expectancy, while also more easily measured, you have to note Iceland comes in first for men's and doesn't even rank in the top ten for women. Spain ranks 2nd in women and doesn't rank in the top 10 for men. Which I found weird. Anyways, the US is clearly beaten in that area.

 

 

As for happiness, if you go to the actual report:

http://worldhappiness.report/

You can open chapter 7, which outlines why America fell behind in happiness. It's not due to economic reasons.

 

Either way, it's still relative. How was this survey given?

 

12 hours ago, Butch said:

We have the very best healthcare on the planet!

 

Dude. Just no. 

Not even close.

[Strange]

13 hours ago, Butch said:

We have the very best healthcare on the planet!

I think this is an example of a sort of blind patriotism that thinks one's own country is best, even when it isn't. Similar to the old (and equally foolish) "my country, right or wrong" attitude.

[StringJunky]

3 hours ago, Strange said:

 The NHS is struggling but it works pretty well - and provides universal health care. 

Think about this bit again: yes, it struggles but it it would only be worse for the service users if they have to pay a company's profits on top. Universal healthcare costs what it costs and that's the cheapest we are going to get it. If the price to maintain that service is higher National Insurance at some point that''s the way it has to be but we can console ourselves that this is the cheapest system that is available...and the best relatively.

[Ten oz]

@Raider5678 we can debate about the advantages of population size and what not but that really misses my point. A country being a world leader is a purely subjective thing. It is just an ambiguous title based on national priorities which does not speak to the the lives being lived by individuals. For many here in the U.S. being #1 in the world in undefined terms is important. So important we (U.S.) refuse to look around the world for examples of what works (diet, education, healthcare, etc) because that would imply we had equals. It is not a helpful attitude. States and cities even do it to each other. Despite the economic success in California numerous less economically successful states insist they are the heartland or real Americans. It is just a childish way to think and prevents people from identifying which things in society and culture could benefit from change. 

 

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

@Raider5678 we can debate about the advantages of population size and what not but that really misses my point. A country being a world leader is a purely subjective thing. It is just an ambiguous title based on national priorities which does not speak to the the lives being lived by individuals. For many here in the U.S. being #1 in the world in undefined terms is important. So important we (U.S.) refuse to look around the world for examples of what works (diet, education, healthcare, etc) because that would imply we had equals. It is not a helpful attitude. States and cities even do it to each other. Despite the economic success in California numerous less economically successful states insist they are the heartland or real Americans. It is just a childish way to think and prevents people from identifying which things in society and culture could benefit from change. 

3

But that denies the benefit of winning something, why else do countries spend/cheat so much to win an Olympic gold? 

[waitforufo]

17 hours ago, iNow said:

Part of realizing that optimization includes hard work, self sacrifice, and struggle, but another part includes ensuring the system isn’t rigged, that rules are written fairly and enforced equally, and that those who work hard can climb the income ladder even if not born into wealth; that the system must be structured in such a way that winning the lottery of birth isn’t the only way to achieve great things... 

Above is the nut of our differences. A capitalist economy is far too spontaneous for your comfort.  There is no stopping the fact that some will succeed more than others in a capitalist economy. Your goal to ensure the system isn't rigged, that rules are written and enforced equally just sets the rigging bias on those you prefer.  They also slow economic growth.  Prosperity requires economic growth.  Why slow it down?  

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Why slow it down?  

 

Why not? A bubble that pops is due to over-inflation.

There's nothing inherently wrong with people getting rich if that's what they want; it's only wrong if they do so knowing it will starve others.

[Ten oz]

59 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

But that denies the benefit of winning something, why else do countries spend/cheat so much to win an Olympic gold? 

 

There is no direct connection between Olympic gold medals the quality of life. The benefits of winning are purely subjective. California hasn't had a NFL team win a Superbowl in decades does that mean people there would be better off in Massachusetts? I suppose if having a local winning NFL team is a top priority in your life the answer is yes. 

Winning is just a human construct. Everything is temporary. Everyone who lives dies and everything we think we own eventually will belong to numerous other people. West Germany and the USSR we're among world leaders in Olympic Gold medals yet neither even exist today. It is useful for individuals to do the best they can in life and friendly competition can be a positive motivator but beyond that I think the notion of winners and losers is a bit draconian. It excuses those who are selfish and favors greed over cooperation and mutual benefits. 

Edited December 29, 2017 by Ten oz
Typo

[dimreepr]

41 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

There is no direct connection between Olympic gold medals the quality of life.

 

Then why do so many countries spend so much in the pursuit of gold?

51 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It is useful for individuals to do the best they can in life and friendly competition can be a positive motivator but beyond that I think the notion of winners and losers is a bit draconian. It excuses those who are selfish and favors greed over cooperation and mutual benefits. 

1

There's nothing inherently wrong with people getting rich if that's what they want; it's only wrong if they do so knowing it will starve others.

[Ten oz]

15 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

There's nothing inherently wrong with people getting rich if that's what they want; it's only wrong if they do so knowing it will starve others.

The word "rich" doesn't appear in my post. 

17 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Then why do so many countries spend so much in the pursuit of gold?

I already addressed this. Perhaps you should just say what you have to say. 

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Yes,  the government cost and voluntary cost is about half each in the US. Our government cost is about $3750 (in 2014) with no more patient costs and the US is about $4600 government costs plus the same for the patient. It's nearer $10 000 now total in the US. The reason they fail is because there is a sizeable profit element in their health services and also those service providers have to show growth in order to attract new investment. This necessitates putting the prices up artificially and on a periodic basis. The shareholder/private model can not work in the essential infrastructure services. It can only lead to rising prices; look at our UK rail and water prices, for two examples.

And there's even worse than mere bad numbers involved. Providing healthcare when your priority is profit leads to some hideously bad medical decisions. This is what makes healthcare in the US so poor for the money we spend on it - our health concerns can be overridden by accountancy. 

And Trump is dismantling a process that was at least providing more coverage. Obamacare was a GOP program to start with. If he replaces it, how much more will it cost Average Joe when Extreme Billionaire pulls his tax support from the system?

[StringJunky]

26 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

And there's even worse than mere bad numbers involved. Providing healthcare when your priority is profit leads to some hideously bad medical decisions. This is what makes healthcare in the US so poor for the money we spend on it - our health concerns can be overridden by accountancy. 

And Trump is dismantling a process that was at least providing more coverage. Obamacare was a GOP program to start with. If he replaces it, how much more will it cost Average Joe when Extreme Billionaire pulls his tax support from the system?

Yes, there's all the other concomitant negative effects of a shareholder-driven system supplying what should be humanitarian-motivated  services.

[iNow]

3 hours ago, waitforufo said:

A capitalist economy is far too spontaneous for your comfort. 

It has less to do with comfort and more to do with optimal outcomes. In a great majority of cases, capitalism works best. No disagreement there. Our bigger point of contention is you see capitalism as an absolute good that’s best in all situations, whereas I take a less extremist and more practical approach. I see areas where the market has historically and consistently failed so instead support more planned/structured approaches in those handful of cases. 

3 hours ago, waitforufo said:

There is no stopping the fact that some will succeed more than others in a capitalist economy

Agreed. The interesting thing is that this also applies in all economic models and ideologies. It’s not specific to capitalism nor is it specific to my point.

Summarized: Stop doing dumb things. Let the data inform our choices instead of operating on faith. Don’t let capitalism become a religion. 

[Ten oz]

28 minutes ago, iNow said:

Summarized: Stop doing dumb things. Let the data inform our choices instead of operating on faith. Don’t let capitalism become a religion. 

Exactly! Outcomes matter more than ideology.