Conquer Club

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote: You have an average wage of over $40.000 a year in the US. In France, it's $28.000.

Yeah, but you don't have so many top-earners as the USA. And average wage doesn't mean you get the same for your bucks. If you get very sick or something, you don't have to pay anything in france whereas you'd have to pay like 5000 dollars in the USA.

Besides, France is a pretty shitty example with their high unemployed percentage and general shittyness of things. There are plenty of countries in Europe with a much higher average wage than the USA.

Like Britain, at $29.000...

No seriously snorri, Luxemburg and Monaco don't count as a serious statistical comparison to the US.

Also snorri, those wages don't factor in tax...so in France, the State takes roughly 40% of that sum. In the US, it's more like 20%.

Napoleon Ier wrote:You live in the US. I know you may think you have it viciously hard, and can't get your gasoline for as cheap as you used to, blah blah blah, but this ridiculous picture you're painting of a Depression-era America in the Tennessee Dustbowl is just not believable. You have an average wage of over $40.000 a year in the US. In France, it's $28.000. Your Gini co-efficient isn't significantly different from that of Britain or France, either.

I hate to break it to you, but America is not poor. Sierra Leone is poor. America? No. I know regurgitating the Hillary Clinton campaign bollocks they feed you about how hard you have it is attractive, but let's face it: half of you are fucking obese: you're not starving by an empty hearth in ragged clothes.

EXCEPT, as I have tried to point out before, I am NOT talking about some Illusionary place I see in textbooks or on TV. The reality ... I live just north of Pittsburgh. We are considered "rural", though we live in a fair-sized town. The number of families that are considered "low income" and qualify for reduced or free lunches, as well as other aid is over 80%. This is generally WITH both parents working. It is skewed a little because in divorced families, only the biological parents' incomes count. It is much WORSE in towns around us. Bradford, home to Zippo lighters, for example has a very high percentage of folks on welfare.

In Buffalo, you see factory after factor closed and boarded up. I was told a few years ago, by a company executive who needed such data, that the roughly 80% of working people up there got $8.00 an hour or less. Just try to get a house and raise a family on that WITHOUT assistance!

Out west, where I also have family, the homeless rate in Santa Barbara is so high that they have opened up their beaches to people living in RV's or cars. They do so because it cuts down on crime. These are FAMILIES, many with working adults. Those who are not working have been laid off and are looking.

Up in the Bay Area (which is a HUGE and diverse area that includes far more than San Francisco) AND over to the Sacramento area, you see job booms, but the only way people can afford even a basic home is if they either have EXTREMELY good jobs or work 2-3 jobs ... usually BOTH parents. (and we wonder why kids are having problems?)


Okay, so you want to say SF and SB are "not typical" fine. Go ANYWHERE. There are a few "hot spots". Omaha is one. Oklahoma has been doing well, also. BUT the vast majority of folks in this country are NOT


FURTHER the only reason a very large number are even "hanging on" is they are living off credit cards. THAT is a disaster waiting to happen.

What a load of exagerated twaddle. The US is one the most prosperous nations ever, and you whinge about how everyone is homeless. Find me some reliable statistics, because until you do, I refuse to accept this utter bollocks. Seriously. What you're describing is the 1930s. In Weimar Germany. Not modern America.

You people are obese, not starving.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote: You have an average wage of over $40.000 a year in the US. In France, it's $28.000.

Yeah, but you don't have so many top-earners as the USA. And average wage doesn't mean you get the same for your bucks. If you get very sick or something, you don't have to pay anything in france whereas you'd have to pay like 5000 dollars in the USA.

Besides, France is a pretty shitty example with their high unemployed percentage and general shittyness of things. There are plenty of countries in Europe with a much higher average wage than the USA.

Like Britain, at $29.000...

No seriously snorri, Luxemburg and Monaco don't count as a serious statistical comparison to the US.

Try Sweden, Denmark and others or something.

I also like to know where you got those stats.

Also snorri, those wages don't factor in tax...so in France, the State takes roughly 40% of that sum. In the US, it's more like 20%.

So?

Napoleon Ier wrote:What a load of exagerated twaddle. The US is one the most prosperous nations ever, and you whinge about how everyone is homeless. Find me some reliable statistics, because until you do, I refuse to accept this utter bollocks.

A prosperous nation does not mean the population is prosperous.

Napoleon Ier wrote:What a load of exagerated twaddle. The US is one the most prosperous nations ever, and you whinge about how everyone is homeless. Find me some reliable statistics, because until you do, I refuse to accept this utter bollocks. Seriously. What you're describing is the 1930s. In Weimar Germany. Not modern America.

You people are obese, not starving.

No, sorry, but I am not exaggerating ONE IOTA. I have the area child statistics because I keep in touch with childcare providers. Their reimbursement rates are BASED ON those statistics... and we just got to the point where we have so many low income folks we no longer have to fill out income applications for childcare and certain other services. For school lunches, we still have to do the paperwork. (this is cost-effectiveness ... once you have so many applications, it is cheaper just to give everyone the higher rate, including those who would not otherwise qualify).

As for the Santa Barbara issue .. it was just on the National News, but Google "Santa Barbara" and you will find plenty on the subject.

FURTHERMORE, statistics are wonderful .... I AM part statitician. BUT you also have to look outside your door occasionally.

AND, If you don't think claiming that I said "everyone is homeless" or anything close isn't an exaggeration, then you need to look up the definition.

tzor wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:You live in the US. I know you may think you have it viciously hard, and can't get your gasoline for as cheap as you used to, blah blah blah, but this ridiculous picture you're painting of a Depression-era America in the Tennessee Dustbowl is just not believable. You have an average wage of over $40.000 a year in the US. In France, it's $28.000. Your Gini co-efficient isn't significantly different from that of Britain or France, either.

Oh no Nappy, we have it hard. Oh that middle class that moved farther and farther and farther from the city (like you know 60 miles or more) and moved into those McManshions with the cathedral ceilings and more bathrooms than they have bedrooms. Kids these days need to be driven to all their after school activities (they don't call them soccer moms for nothing) so betwen a full time job (because it takes two to pay for the McManshions) and the afterschool activities they need that gas guzzling minivan for the kids. Of course no one has time to stay home and cook anymore so the kids get obeese on fast food resturants. Yes they have it really hard.

Because they are really stupid.

Did I mention that these same people routinely drive 75 MPH in the 55 MPH zone?

It's rough with the weak dollar. It's not like European tourists are going to rush over to see our vineyards. (I'm talking Long Island not that Califorina crap.)

The AVERAGE is highly skewed by a few factors.

1. that includes some EXTREMELY high incomes such as Bill Gates, Donald Trump. If you have any knowledge of working with stats, you know outliers have a significant impact on averages.

2. A LARGE number of folks now work 2 jobs to get those incomes.

That means either mom and dad don't see each other except "in passing," and usually someone else is watching the kids for a good portion of their lives. That might be OK if they are in a decent childcare or have a nice grandma/other relative to watch them... BUT it bodes poorly for their relationship with their parents.

FURTHER ... ALL of that can be flushed down the toilet with just one bad illness or injury.

heavycola wrote:2) What possible argument - unless you own stock in health insurance companies - could there be against setting up a free, nationalised health service in the US?

Since when was health care free anywhere? Sure I (as a Canadian) don't pay directly to the hospital or health insurance company (unless I want Blue Cross), but I'm still the one paying. The only difference is that I'm paying for my health care plus I'm paying all the government workers who have to handle the extra tax money.

Ray Rider wrote:

heavycola wrote:2) What possible argument - unless you own stock in health insurance companies - could there be against setting up a free, nationalised health service in the US?

Since when was health care free anywhere? Sure I (as a Canadian) don't pay directly to the hospital or health insurance company (unless I want Blue Cross), but I'm still the one paying. The only difference is that I'm paying for my health care plus I'm paying all the government workers who have to handle the extra tax money.

It's still cheaper than the US system though.

Ofcourse nothing is free in any society, but it's free like the roadlights or the pavement you walk on.

Maybe we should here from somone who has been to the hospital?


I had a terrible accident and went to the emergancy room to have my nose fixed. It was badly broken. But I am very poor. Because I had no insurance, and no way to pay, the hospital told me to go home. My injury wasn't life endangering. That's what they told me. I still can't afford it.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Maybe we should here from somone who has been to the hospital?


I had a terrible accident and went to the emergancy room to have my nose fixed. It was badly broken. But I am very poor. Because I had no insurance, and no way to pay, so the hospital told me to go home. My injury wasn't life endangering. That's what they told me. I still can't afford it.

If Owen Wilson can do it, so can you. It's time to move to Hollywood.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Maybe we should here from somone who has been to the hospital?


I had a terrible accident and went to the emergancy room to have my nose fixed. It was broken badly. But I am very poor. Because I had no insurance, and no way to pay, so the hospital told me to go home. My injury wasn't life endangering. That's what they told me. I still can't afford it.

Once I got a ring stuck on my finger. We didn't want to go the hospital because it would cost an obscene amount of money. After two hours with pliers, some string, ice water, windex, and a lot of pain, we got it off. I didn't heal for a week. That said, the US can't afford jack right now. Sucks to be us.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Maybe we should here from somone who has been to the hospital?


I had a terrible accident and went to the emergancy room to have my nose fixed. It was badly broken. But I am very poor. Because I had no insurance, and no way to pay, the hospital told me to go home. My injury wasn't life endangering. That's what they told me. I still can't afford it.

That's really shitty. Hope it healed OK.


The problem with the US 'health system', such as it is, is IMHO a symptom of a wider malaise.
The American Dream (to which nappy apparently subscribes): work hard and you can be and do anything. You can make lots of money, live in a big house with a big TV and own three cars. You reap what you sow. And now you've accrued all that wealth, what the hell is the government doing taking some of it off you to subsidise people who obviously haven't worked as hard?
It is a selfish idealism; everyone who isn't rich is lazy. It means people like nappy don't have to give a f*ck about anyone else but themselves, because anyone who needs free healthcare or a welfare cheque to get by is somehow a deficient human being. But there are, of course, millions of Willy Lomans in the world. And the tanking property market, impending recession and credit crunch are about to boot a lot more people into poverty. We should be fucking well looking out for one another, not talking ourselves out of having to give a little back with sneering generalisations.

heavycola wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Maybe we should here from somone who has been to the hospital?


I had a terrible accident and went to the emergancy room to have my nose fixed. It was badly broken. But I am very poor. Because I had no insurance, and no way to pay, the hospital told me to go home. My injury wasn't life endangering. That's what they told me. I still can't afford it.

That's really shitty. Hope it healed OK.


The problem with the US 'health system', such as it is, is IMHO a symptom of a wider malaise.
The American Dream (to which nappy apparently subscribes): work hard and you can be and do anything. You can make lots of money, live in a big house with a big TV and own three cars. You reap what you sow. And now you've accrued all that wealth, what the hell is the government doing taking some of it off you to subsidise people who obviously haven't worked as hard?
It is a selfish idealism; everyone who isn't rich is lazy. It means people like nappy don't have to give a f*ck about anyone else but themselves, because anyone who needs free healthcare or a welfare cheque to get by is somehow a deficient human being. But there are, of course, millions of Willy Lomans in the world. And the tanking property market, impending recession and credit crunch are about to boot a lot more people into poverty. We should be fucking well looking out for one another, not talking ourselves out of having to give a little back with sneering generalisations.

Agreed, but at the same time we need to encourage self reliance. The reason things have gotten so bad for so many people is the rampant consumerism that's taken over our country. People live in debt in order to live beyond their means because spending is driven into our heads from day one. The American Dream does still exist in a way, but it's all fugly and mutated. It's all about "I want". There are, of course, people who genuinely can't be faulted, but I'm against bailing out people who lived irresponsible life styles when there are more deserving people to lend a hand.

Frigidus wrote:Agreed, but at the same time we need to encourage self reliance. The reason things have gotten so bad for so many people is the rampant consumerism that's taken over our country. People live in debt in order to live beyond their means because spending is driven into our heads from day one. The American Dream does still exist in a way, but it's all fugly and mutated. It's all about "I want". There are, of course, people who genuinely can't be faulted, but I'm against bailing out people who lived irresponsible life styles when there are more deserving people to lend a hand.

Also true. I still remember that Oprah-episode or something about a family with 3 kids where the parents worked double jobs because every kid needed a car and the best of the best products. The family was high in debts and the parents really didn't understand they didn't need to give all that shit.

On the one hand, I see that they lived like idiots and it's their fault, but on the other hand it's obvious that it's a problem partly blamed on american society which tells people to do stuff like that. The idea is bad and people, always following the herd, are buying into it because they think it's supposed to be that way. The retardedness and irresponsibility people show is a consequence of the stupid message the government sends. I see it is slowly spreading to Europe and other countries, and I want to tell people they're being stupid but it won't work.

Man, I get depressed of this shit.

heavycola wrote:The problem with the US 'health system', such as it is, is IMHO a symptom of a wider malaise. The American Dream (to which nappy apparently subscribes): work hard and you can be and do anything. You can make lots of money, live in a big house with a big TV and own three cars. You reap what you sow. And now you've accrued all that wealth, what the hell is the government doing taking some of it off you to subsidise people who obviously haven't worked as hard?
It is a selfish idealism; everyone who isn't rich is lazy. It means people like nappy don't have to give a f*ck about anyone else but themselves, because anyone who needs free healthcare or a welfare cheque to get by is somehow a deficient human being. But there are, of course, millions of Willy Lomans in the world. And the tanking property market, impending recession and credit crunch are about to boot a lot more people into poverty. We should be fucking well looking out for one another, not talking ourselves out of having to give a little back with sneering generalisations.

Well to be honest, your description of Americans and our attitude towards how we address health care is just as generalized. I would never say that our system is perfect, but it does provide better treatment than European systems. But to be honest, if that's what Europeans want then what's wrong with universal coverage for them. I don't think we can really pin down a country and say, 'hey you don't have the same kind of system as other countries and that's wrong!' Each country has its own unique issues to address. It's interesting to note that countries which claim to have universal coverage actually fail to cover everyone. So the idea of giving everyone access to health care, although noble, hasn't actually been applied. No government can fully cover every single individual.

Canada has universal health care suckers

protectedbygold wrote:

heavycola wrote:The problem with the US 'health system', such as it is, is IMHO a symptom of a wider malaise. The American Dream (to which nappy apparently subscribes): work hard and you can be and do anything. You can make lots of money, live in a big house with a big TV and own three cars. You reap what you sow. And now you've accrued all that wealth, what the hell is the government doing taking some of it off you to subsidise people who obviously haven't worked as hard?
It is a selfish idealism; everyone who isn't rich is lazy. It means people like nappy don't have to give a f*ck about anyone else but themselves, because anyone who needs free healthcare or a welfare cheque to get by is somehow a deficient human being. But there are, of course, millions of Willy Lomans in the world. And the tanking property market, impending recession and credit crunch are about to boot a lot more people into poverty. We should be fucking well looking out for one another, not talking ourselves out of having to give a little back with sneering generalisations.

Well to be honest, your description of Americans and our attitude towards how we address health care is just as generalized. I would never say that our system is perfect, but it does provide better treatment than European systems. But to be honest, if that's what Europeans want then what's wrong with universal coverage for them. I don't think we can really pin down a country and say, 'hey you don't have the same kind of system as other countries and that's wrong!' Each country has its own unique issues to address. It's interesting to note that countries which claim to have universal coverage actually fail to cover everyone. So the idea of giving everyone access to health care, although noble, hasn't actually been applied. No government can fully cover every single individual.

Not trying to generalise at all. Just disagreeing with the basic tenets, as i see them, of privatised healthcare. I think that for a democracy to rely on purely provatised health provision is wrong, yes, but i didn;t mean to generalise about americans themselves.

Why should the government be seeking to provide healthcare? Can't private charities and individual doctors, as was done (extremely successfully) pre-1945?

Napoleon Ier wrote:Why should the government be seeking to provide healthcare? Can't private charities and individual doctors, as was done (extremely successfully) pre-1945?

charities depend on donations, and why shoul;d anyone donate to people too lazy to get their own health insurance?

I think that for a democracy to rely on purely provatised health provision is wrong,

US has never been a Democracy to begin with, it is a Constitutional Republic.

Carry on.

heavycola wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Why should the government be seeking to provide healthcare? Can't private charities and individual doctors, as was done (extremely successfully) pre-1945?

charities depend on donations, and why shoul;d anyone donate to people too lazy to get their own health insurance?

True dat.

Heres the thing. On average, it costs a little over a million dollars to run for Congress, or the Senate. But! these jobs only pay a hundred thousand a year......

So where does the money to run come from?
Or even better still, who writes the bills that are to become law?
Does anybody remember when even Mrs. Clinton was bought out?
Thats why there will be no universal health care in America.


And yes, my nose healed fine. Only now it's around a quarter of an inch to the right. And that was after I did my best to re-break it and move it over. Most pain I have ever been in in my life.

Universal HealthCare is not how the government was set up.

Depending on how you interpret the Constitution, you will either agree or disagree with this. Congress is given the right to take taxes for the general benefit of the people, etc. etc.; some read interpret this radically different then others. Me? I believe that as we were set up on a system of capitalism, that government intervention is to be kept at a minimum always.

Some good arguments for anti-healthcare is that it is proven to fail everywhere it has been established. Everybody and their uncle are abusing the systems, that for anything serious, it takes so long that some people will end up in worse condition, death.

Also, it is awfully close to wealth distribution, which is even closer to socialism. Everyone's money being taken from them, and given to anyone who deems themself sick, will create an even bigger pool of "suckers" then we have now. Everyone relying on the government, and taking but never giving their share. It will be, in essence, wealth distribution on a small scale.

TaylorSandbek wrote:Universal HealthCare is not how the government was set up.

Depending on how you interpret the Constitution, you will either agree or disagree with this. Congress is given the right to take taxes for the general benefit of the people, etc. etc.; some read interpret this radically different then others. Me? I believe that as we were set up on a system of capitalism, that government intervention is to be kept at a minimum always.

Some good arguments for anti-healthcare is that it is proven to fail everywhere it has been established. Everybody and their uncle are abusing the systems, that for anything serious, it takes so long that some people will end up in worse condition, death.

Also, it is awfully close to wealth distribution, which is even closer to socialism. Everyone's money being taken from them, and given to anyone who deems themself sick, will create an even bigger pool of "suckers" then we have now. Everyone relying on the government, and taking but never giving their share. It will be, in essence, wealth distribution on a small scale.

Well put

You may have free access, but access to what?..........a chair where you can sit down and wait or a place in line behind everyone else because after all, they're getting everything for free too.

I don't think that you guys have listened to a word that these wonderful europeans have said.