OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by LintMan:
I'm curious: can you tell me where you got those statistics from (meaning the health care world ranking and cost stats). Do you have a link? I'd love to check that out.

The cost is from a CBC article:
Canadian health care quality comparable to other rich countries

It looks like the most recent ranking actually places the U.S. at 37th.

The report is very long, but a summary and a link to the rest of the information, can be found here:
The World Health Report 2004

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by Skolem:
As you are discussing this topics, can I ask the americans of this bord, a single thing: I never understand why things that are organized by the state are such a terrible thing?

It's because our government has had a recent (Last 30, 40 years) tendency to horribly waste the taxpayer money when it gets involved. At least - that's why the guy on the street distrusts government getting involved.

(This ignores the fact that big government in the USA has done some _GREAT_ things, if you go back to, say, Roosevelt's time.)

More importantly, right now the current administration believes that what's good for the rich, what's good for the corporations, is good for America. Baby Bush and the other Bushes never met a rich person they didn't like, except for Saddam and Democrats.

[vigabrand]

Originally posted by Skolem:
As you are discussing this topics, can I ask the americans of this bord, a single thing: I never understand why things that are organized by the state are such a terrible thing?
As a society it is normal to help others when you aren't in need, as they will help you if you are, thats one of the most basic idea, and health or education belongs to this, why should someone not receive any help in such thing just because he hadn't the money? Sure they may be some who would profite of this but there aren't the majority, AND there are the others who had no chance in life, why punish them?
I never understand this point of view, but maybe it's just that I am a foolish european
Skolem

A lot of Americans don't like having to depend on the gov't for anything. While some things are necessary, like defense, people take issue with others. Americans don't like the gov't having too much power over them, and creating huge beurocracies that govern important things like healthcare or social security, is viewed by some as too much. The two idealogies are 1)the gov't should provide, and 2)the private sector can do better. The main difference to me is that if the gov't provides, your taxes are greater, and your service sub par. If the private sector provides, you are at the mercy of the current market, but you have more personal wealth to enrich yourself. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the average western European pays like 50 to 60 percent of his income in taxes, in order to pay for all the socialized services. In America, it's like 20 to 30 percent I think. Keep in mind that we are still paying for socilized services like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Securtiy, Welfare etc., but they aren't as broad or general as Europes. Instead the idea is that you have more to spend, and hopefully save or invest for the things you need. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of Americans who want to be just like Europe, I'm just giving my personal perspective.

Personally, I think gov't empowering it's citizens economically is the best solution. I've never seen anyone happy with the return they get from Social Security, nor with the care they get from Medicare. The investments they made into these systems have horrible returns, usually nowhere near what you put into it.

Vig

[Gandalf Parker]

I would think that US politics would be easy for space gamers to understand.
Under the democrats we would become the federation.
Under the republicans we would become the ferrengi.

[ July 26, 2004, 22:35: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

[Demosthenes]

It's important to note that the opposite of anti-abortion is not necessarily pro-abortion. It's pro-choice.

One may disapprove of abortion but still believe that private citizens have a right to choose what's is best for them. Which I believe is Kerry's stance. And probably the most libertarian approach.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Skolem:
You are catholic ... you have no right to have an opinion that is different from the pope

Precisely what is fundamentally wrong about being a Catholic (or Republican): having other people doing your thinking for you (be it the Pope, or in the case of Republicans, some self-appointed, demagogic, hypocritical arbiter of morality and social values).

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Demosthenes:
It's important to note that the opposite of anti-abortion is not necessarily pro-abortion. It's pro-choice.

One may disapprove of abortion but still believe that private citizens have a right to choose what's is best for them. Which I believe is Kerry's stance. And probably the most libertarian approach.

Well said.