Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
partially agree with this.
Quite different, on many things, on balance, in most USians eyes.
Not very different, on many things, on balance, in our European eyes.
Not as different as any of his supporters want to believe.
The US is amazingly brilliant in so many ways. But it's utterly flawed in so so many ways. I really enjoyed my holiday there earlier this year, but it'd take a hell of a lot of persuading (and cold, hard dosh) for me to actually live there. My visit across the pond gave me a renewed love for home.
Heathcare reform - thats such a massive error
Is it obvious that I'm singing this to the tune of 'Rollin' by Limp Bizkit?
When compared to 'whites', these minority groups have higher incidence of chronic diseases, higher mortality, and poorer health outcomes. Among the disease-specific examples of racial and ethnic disparities in the United States is the cancer incidence rate among African Americans, which is 25% higher than among whites. In addition, adult African Americans and Hispanics have approximately twice the risk as whites of developing diabetes. Minorities also have higher rates of cardiovascular disease, HIV/AIDS, and infant mortality than whites. Caucasian Americans have much lower life expectancy than Asian Americans. A 2001 study found large racial differences exist in healthy life expectancy at lower levels of education.
'Socialised' ~ 'Socialist' ~ 'Communist', eh? Eh? EH?
As for "death panels"... the current US healthcare policy is directly responsible for somewhere between 18,000 and 100,000 deaths per year.
The U.S. spends more per capita than any other nation in the world.
The US pays twice as much yet lags behind other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy.
Currently the U.S. has a higher infant mortality rate than most of the world's industrialized nations.
The USA's life expectancy lags 42nd in the world, after most rich nations, lagging last of the G5 (Japan, France, Germany, UK, USA) and just after Chile (35th) and Cuba (37th).
The USA's life expectancy is ranked 50th in the world.
The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).
A 2008 report by the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among the 19 compared countries.
According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the United States is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e. some kind of insurance).
The same Institute of Medicine report notes that "Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States."
A 2009 Harvard study published in the American Journal of Public Health found a much higher figure of more than 44,800 excess deaths annually in the United States due to Americans lacking health insurance.
More broadly, the total number of people in the United States, whether insured or uninsured, who die because of lack of medical care was estimated in a 1997 analysis to be nearly 100,000 per year.
A lack of mental health coverage for Americans bears significant ramifications to the U.S. economy and social system. A report by the U.S. Surgeon General found that mental illnesses are the second leading cause of disability in the nation and affect 20 percent of all Americans. Which explains a lot...
This is not a nature/nurture debate, as has been proven by the statistics for other, more egalitarian countries that treat their citizens with a little more respect.
Now please address each of the remaining points you've chosen to ignore.
Accusing TheWza of pulling stats and facts "out of his arse", then maming wild statements about death panels and socialised health care without any proof yourself
Superb demonstration of textbook right wing hypocrisy
although it does sort of apply, as you appear to maming your arguement
He's on a pure wind-up trip - that last sentence is a clear tell
Don't bother trying to debate with him, he's in a trolly mood.
The reason the left is disappointed about the way the health care thing is going is because far from reforming the current system, what's happening is actually a massive expansion of the status quo - the insurance industry is getting 30 million new customers who are being forced to buy their product - with a few extra regulations like not being able to deny customers insurance and stopping the practice of capping people's lifetime payment limits. I don't see how any person on a human level could deny those regulations are anything but an unfettered good.
throwing completely unsubstantiated accusations around though, eh?
You either want to talk about it or you don't. And if you don't want to talk about it AND you don't understand it, then shut the fuck up.
A lot of people have an interest in politics as a spectacle - I'm one - that has nothing to do with whether it directly affects their life. More importantly, having an interest in world politics in now way precludes anyone that is able to walk and chew gum at the same time from focusing on more pressing issues at hand at home. If anything it broadens the view.
Surely this kind of stuff is the bread and butter of your work. I'm not saying that you have to know the ins and outs of every political decision, because as you say at home there's other stuff to think about. This issue has brought up some pretty big questions for the role of the NHS here however, which is one of the most important and relevant things in UK politics imaginable (which have been gleefully taken up by UK academics and, more recently, grudgingly by US ones, because we've led them by the nose in terms of research and policy)
Merely that everything you've come out with so far is merely polemical drivel.
The phrases "One Term Barry" and "Death panels" do little to even give a semblance of veracity to anything you ever come out with.
Why do you punch so, so far below your weight?
You're better than this.
and then dismiss some near-universally respected sources of research linked to by wikipedia.
And besides, all you've done with your rhetoric is to reinforce the notion that the American healthcare system is massively broken, and you have not given one reason why universal healthcare isn't the right answer to the US's undeniable problem.
YES YOU DO.
As you well know, it's very easy to simply reply to pointless rhetorical drivel with an identical counter argument, simply by replacing a few choice terms with the exact opposite notion.
Whereas replying effectively to well established facts requires;
1) either producing equally verifiable counter examples,
2) just descending into incoherent rhetoric, or
3) create diversions away from the matter at hand (probably claiming it was only ever for tha lulz anyways)
But you already knew that, because you're just trolling. You've passed on option 1, are ploughing the furrow of option 2 and will probably descend into option 3 at some point
You're clearly able to come up with resoned arguments when the fancy taqkes you.
What's to be gained from spewing out dafty troll statements that are so easily refuted.
Proper, reasoned debate can be enriching for all involved, and can further your 'cause', whether you're able to 'convert' folk or not.
Daft trolling just stifles debate to the point where any attempt to address any ofthe issues is obfuscated by petty semantics and diversions.
I had underestimated you. On browsing your most recent replies, it seems you've got to stage 3 sooner than I'd thought.
A tabular comparison of the US, Canada, and other countries:
It makes for depressing/reassuring reading, depending on where you live.
The entire industry is run by private insurance - there's no public plan, no increased access to Medicare.
In fact, by-and-large you can boil it down to forcing everyone to buy a product from a private company - what could be more joyous to a fan of the insurance industry such as yourself?
which Georgie was kind enough not to bother looking for.
Fair enough he has pretty much the same policies, but he is better looking and does some great speeches. If Bush tried to ramp up the war in Afghanistan and extend it into Pakistan as Obama has done there would have been much more outrage. Obama has succeeded in doing so with barely a protest. Top marks to him for using his magic powers to put the people back to sleep, while he carries on doing the US's dirty work. It's quite an achievement.
I think if you paid even a passing interest in the campaign last year, Obama repeatedly promised to scale down the war in Iraq and increase the focus on the war in Afghanistan. This is exactly what he's done.
tasteless joke during the Bush years, in that here is the leader of the free world saying he'll fight terrorism and then using the most appalling methods to do so...thus creating more terrorists/hatred of the West.
What's interesting is that the liberals (not all, by any means) have equalled and in some cases outdone the conservatives' penchant for denial in matters like this.
Then there's the grotesque irony of a man authorizing deadly force against a civilian-heavy area where a minority of Al Qaeda members were hanging out mere weeks after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.
Like Mr Moore once wrote, it's a joke. A great big joke.
Obama never claimed he'd end the War in Afghanistan or the campaign against Al Quaeda and, even if he had, I'm far from convinced it's possible or even desirable. Whichever way you look at it, the US is already involved in these campaigns and pulling out isn't that simple. And where the hell would that leave the people in Afghanistan or Pakistan anyway? It'd leave Pakistan trying to defend itself from a resurgent and potentially victorious Al Quaede without support and the people of Afghanistan facing the fact they've had another 8 years of shit bombarded on their country and still ended up with the appalling regime seizing back the power at the start. Regardless of whether I think America should have started either of these campaigns, turning and walking away is pretty much the worst possible of all options.
That said, if the reports in Yemen are accurate it's indefensible and, as people have said, just hands brilliant PR to Al Quaeda and its supporters. There's absolutely no defence for killing civlilians based on a suspicion.
and your second, actually. So I agree with you, is what I mean to say.
It's just...I dunno. I said it in the post above...just seems totally horrific that this has happened and gone almost completely unreported.
Which it has.
I thought you meant the irony of receiving the Nobel a week after cranking up a war - I'm sure there was a column about that in every newspaper in the universe.
...because the NPP doesn't really count for much (they've given it to Kissinger and Mother Theresa before).
But yeah, it's surprising how even the conservative outlets (Fox, etc) haven't really picked up the story.
He's followed on with his promises you can't fault him for that. Even the promise to extend in to Pakistan he's kept faithfully. But you know, he's not Bush so it's all good
The massive disparity between conservative and liberal illusions of who he is and what he's up to are pretty hilarious.
Salon is a slightly-left-centrist type thing. Just good journalism, basically. I prefer Barack to George any day, but I want him to prove his critics wrong. Shit like this gives them (and others) ammunition (in some cases, literally).
Actually governing and making decisions brings things into clearer focus.
To be honest, the person he most resembles at the moment isn't Bush, it's Bill Clinton: committed centrist.