Originally posted by yo its meagreed
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/n21465217-lifespan-usa/
"WASHINGTON, Apr. 22, 2008 (Reuters) — Life expectancy may have reached an all-time high for the United States, but it is declining in many poor counties, especially among women, researchers reported on Monday."
"One of the questions we are asking is whether our ranking in the world is getting in ...[text shortened]... we are not doing a good job of taking care of the worst-off"
I think the answer is YES!!
Originally posted by reinfeldBecause economics has nothing to do with survival of the fittest, it's a rigged game.
...why is it that socialist humanist "progressives" ( who i bet are vastly
endeared to the darwin view of evolution ) object to "survivial of the fittest" in technology and economics ?...
Anyways, if it's survival of the fittest, then surely you have no problems with people banding together to achieve more than they can on their own...
Originally posted by shavixmirIndeed.
Because economics has nothing to do with survival of the fittest, it's a rigged game.
Anyways, if it's survival of the fittest, then surely you have no problems with people banding together to achieve more than they can on their own...
Free market economics is more like survival of the fattest.
Perfect competition (or anything remotely like it) is pure fantasy. The same sort of fantasy as the Laffer curve.
Originally posted by uzlessPolls for over 50 years have shown that the majority of Americans support a universal health care system. The problem is not with the people, but with the undemocratic institutions which are amenable to pressure from economic heavy hitters rather than the majority of the citizenry.
There has to be a national agreement from most of the citizens of a country before you can institute an NHS. Not enough people in the US want an NHS so to try and bring one in now just won't work.
People have to WANT one. I can't see Americans, as a whole, ever agreeing to help other people when it comes to health care. As a whole, they would rather pay ...[text shortened]... or only themselves.
I'm sure there will/have been posters in this thread to confirm this.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderMajority? What percentage is that? You need at least 80% to make it work politically. Most polls I've seen have it at about 60% in favour, 30% against.
Polls for over 50 years have shown that the majority of Americans support a universal health care system. The problem is not with the people, but with the undemocratic institutions which are amenable to pressure from economic heavy hitters rather than the majority of the citizenry.
Example.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/us/healthcare031020_poll.html
Originally posted by shavixmirNo problem what so ever, as long as the members of the band are there voluntarily.
Because economics has nothing to do with survival of the fittest, it's a rigged game.
Anyways, if it's survival of the fittest, then surely you have no problems with people banding together to achieve more than they can on their own...
Originally posted by uzlessJust goes to show, right and wrong is not determined by arbitrary percentages, something that was wrong at 60:30 is still wrong at 80:10
Majority? What percentage is that? You need at least 80% to make it work politically. Most polls I've seen have it at about 60% in favour, 30% against.
Example.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/us/healthcare031020_poll.html
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterbecause there were a lot of attacks on american homeland before the mighty bush put america on the offensive. like the war in iraq has anything to do with deterring terrorists to strike in america
If you're so gung ho on rejiggering the U.S. budget, why don't play around with redirecting all the money spent on entitlements such as Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare? Those three programs are poised to dwarf anything in the current budget, including the money spent on the War on Terror. Also, your elitist attitude about knowing what's be ...[text shortened]... ogs.wsj.com/health/2008/04/22/would-universal-coverage-prolong-life-expectancies/?mod=WSJBlog
Originally posted by uzlessisn't that like a majority? how many more do you need? real democracy is 50%+1.
Majority? What percentage is that? You need at least 80% to make it work politically. Most polls I've seen have it at about 60% in favour, 30% against.
Example.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/us/healthcare031020_poll.html
i wonder what health care benefits have the 30% that they are against a national run program. or how much they distrust the government to take care of their health that they would rather trust the corporations that are getting rich out of their sickness.
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessYou've changed your claim; a common occurrence when one's claim is shown to be false.
Majority? What percentage is that? You need at least 80% to make it work politically. Most polls I've seen have it at about 60% in favour, 30% against.
Example.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/us/healthcare031020_poll.html
Your original claim was:
There has to be a national agreement from most of the citizens of a country before you can institute an NHS.
That condition is clearly met.
Out of curiosity, where do you come up with the now "80%" requirement? Does that hold for ANY national policy i.e. none can be enacted unless there is 80% support or is it something you just dreamed up after claiming that most Americans are too selfish to support paying for other people's health care (something they already do in the case of the poor and elderly)?
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat is your arbitrary percentage for determining what is right or wrong?
You've changed your claim; a common occurrence when one's claim is shown to be false.
Your original claim was:
There has to be a national agreement from [b]most of the citizens of a country before you can institute an NHS.
That condition is clearly met.
Out of curiosity, where do you co ...[text shortened]... other people's health care (something they already do in the case of the poor and elderly)?[/b]
51:49 or
50.000012:49.999988
we'll leave out the undecided or 'did not respond to this survey" for the sake of *guffaw* clarity.
1 edit
Leave it to me to break up your left-wing pitty party. Even the Harvard researchers who authored the study agree that universal health care wouldn't fix the problem of failing life-expectancies among the poor and other minority groups:
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/04/22/would-universal-coverage-prolong-life-expectancies/?mod=WSJBlog
Here's the original study in case anyone is interested: http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050066
Lastly, it turns out that the "mortality gap" that was first noticed in the '80s and '90s has nothing at all to do with access to health care or lack of insurance, it's the result of bad behaviors: smoking, drinking and chronic diseases related to obesity:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=293842298102865
Neither universal health care, nor an infinite amount of money dumped into our health care system can fix the results of bad living.
If we implement a universal, single-payer model in America today, the negative effects will reliably occur about a generation from now, says Sven R. Larson. However, one effect that we'd feel almost immediately is the $17,200 each median-income household would pay in health care taxes each year:
http://www.jpands.org/vol13no1/larson.pdf