Health Care Reform a Welcome Change

[Sanctuary]

This wasn't in response to you Sanctuary, it was in response to Neo's post.

But since you picked it up, are you advocating that US should be rich at expense of quality of life?

That's obviously a rhetorical question.

But, the answer is no because if the US was rich, quality of life improves.

[Mish]

That's obviously a rhetorical question.

But, the answer is no because if the US was rich, quality of life improves.

The quality of life can't improve with increasing wealth if there are barriers to improving it. Which can be seen by this example.

I'm saying one of the reasons we're rich is BECAUSE we don't provide free healthcare.

[Sanctuary]

The quality of life can't improve with increasing wealth if there are barriers to improving it. Which can be seen by this example.

50 years ago, the average person had to work probably a hundred hours to buy a TV. Today, they can work like 20 hours to buy a TV. What I mean by quality of life improving is that everyone can get more for less (please don't bring some crazy inflation argument, for some reason I feel it coming from somewhere).

What I think most people have a problem with is how that wealth is distributed.

Which brings me to ask this question - Would you rather make $50,000 a year and everyone you know makes $40,000 or would you rather make $65,000 a year and everyone you know makes $78,000?

Most people would choose to make $50,000 because they feel it's unfair.

Also, my apologies to Neo for hijacking the thread lol. But I'm really passionate about this topic.

[NeoSeminole]

Mishanya says:

"But doesn't the number of the rich grow as well? Last time I checked US was the richest country in the world with the most amount of richest people."

the number of the rich doesn't grow proportionately with the number of poor. I'm sure you've seen examples of this and it's statistically known that the poor have, on avg, more children than the rich.

"The argument should be the other way around. How come the poor Australia and Canada with it's scarcity of rich people can afford to successfully provide free health care and the richest country in the world can not?"

smaller countries like Canada and Australia also don't have the same military and research funding as the US. This is primarily why you're able to afford universal health care.

[Mish]

50 years ago, the average person had to work probably a hundred hours to buy a TV. Today, they can work like 20 hours to buy a TV. What I mean by quality of life improving is that everyone can get more for less (please don't bring some crazy inflation argument, for some reason I feel it coming from somewhere).

What I think most people have a problem with is how that wealth is distributed.

It's like this across the board though. Most developed countries in the world have gone through this change. The problem is not with distribution of wealth per se, but how far a country has come towards balancing it's monetary assets with assets that increase the quality of life for its citizens. This comes from a definition of what the majority of people in the country think is most important. The problem with choosing wealth over quality of life is the quality of life will continue to decline and the gap between the rich and poor will continue to stretch to a breaking point. US may be the richest country in the world, but right now it's richness is not reflected by the life quality of its citizens, which can be seen in these surveys.

[url]http://www.citymayors.com/features/quality_survey.html[/url]

[url]http://www.mercer.com/qualityofliving[/url]

[url]http://channels.netscape.com/pf/package.jsp?name=fte/bestqualityoflife/bestqualityoflife[/url]

The way I see it, quality of life is the real wealth.

[NeoSeminole]

Sanctuary says:

"Also, my apologies to Neo for hijacking the thread lol. But I'm really passionate about this topic."

it's all good, bro. I don't mind entertaining several topics of discussion as long as they offer stimulating conversation.

[Sanctuary]

The way I see it, quality of life is the real wealth.

Are you listening to the words that are coming out of my mouth (or more accurately, the words that are coming off my fingers)?

My argument is that more wealth equates to higher quality of life for generally everybody.

I guess I need to read a book on how to be clear and concise cause nobody ever gets what I'm saying.

[Mish]

the number of the rich doesn't grow proportionately with the number of poor. I'm sure you've seen examples of this and it's statistically known that the poor have, on avg, more children than the rich.

Okay, but statistically the wealth of the rich people per capita is also much greater compared to wealth of rich people in Canada and Australia. Also National Average Per Capita Income in US is greater than both Australia's and Canada's.

[url]http://www.success-and-culture.net/articles/percapitaincome.shtml[/url]

Also, regardless of the amount of people, the percentile ratio of poor to rich people in both US and Australia are roughly the same. So the impacts should not be too different.

[url]http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=175799[/url]

smaller countries like Canada and Australia also don't have the same military and research funding as the US. This is primarily why you're able to afford universal health care.

Well, this is a different issue all together.

[Sanctuary]

Okay, but statistically the wealth of the rich people per capita is also much greater compared to wealth of rich people in Canada and Australia. Not only that, but also National Average Per Capita Income in US is greater than both Australia's and Canada's.

[url]http://www.success-and-culture.net/articles/percapitaincome.shtml[/url]

Also, regardless of the amount of people, the ratio of poor to rich people in both US and Australia are roughly the same

[url]http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=175799[/url]



Well, this is a different issue all together.

That's because we get a ton of immigrants coming into this country. Of course it's gonna lower our per capita income.

Also, while we're at it. I don't see what the problem with loosening immigration laws is, immigrants are a good source of working class labor.

[Mish]

My argument is that more wealth equates to higher quality of life for generally everybody.

I guess I need to read a book on how to be clear and concise cause nobody ever gets what I'm saying.

Yes I read what you posted.

You concluded that

50 years ago, the average person had to work probably a hundred hours to buy a TV. Today, they can work like 20 hours to buy a TV.

Therefore

My argument is that more wealth equates to higher quality of life for generally everybody.

But are you paying to attention to what I'm saying? I'm saying that above formula works for all developed countries, regardless of size and scale and it doesn't increase the real quality of life above the simple economies of scale. The real increases of quality of life (did you follow my links?) are reflected by how successfully a country is able to balance it's wealth with quality of life assets like public infrastructure, sustainability and healhtcare.

[Sanctuary]

But are you paying to attention to what I'm saying? I'm saying that above formula works for all developed countries, regardless of size and scale and it doesn't increase the real quality of life above the simple economies of scale. The real increases of quality of life (did you follow my links?) are reflected by how successfully a country is able to balance it's wealth with quality of life assets like public infrastructure, sustainability and healhtcare.

This is the GDP vs Happiness Index debate that MVP and I were touching on.

This is just a matter of opinion now. But I get what you're saying.

[IndiReloaded]

You guys got trashed cuz your dollar went up and we stopped buying paper from you lol.

Um, no we didn't sorry. Our real estate market and banks didn't tank the way yours did. Our dollar did go up, there we some effects from that on businesses but still relatively small compared to all the jobs lost in the US (due to your own poor management, not anything Canada did).

[url]http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/02/the-financial-crisis-for-dummies-why-canada-is-completely-immune-from-the-u-s-mortgage-meltdown-kind-of.aspx[/url]

[bluesummer]

Um, no we didn't sorry. Our real estate market and banks didn't tank the way yours did. Our dollar did go up, there we some effects from that on businesses but still relatively small compared to all the jobs lost in the US (due to your own poor management, not anything Canada did).

[url]http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/02/the-financial-crisis-for-dummies-why-canada-is-completely-immune-from-the-u-s-mortgage-meltdown-kind-of.aspx[/url]

You beat me to it, Indi.

I do agree that part of the reason we pay more taxes and have less wealthier people is in part due to the huge cost of our healthcare system. It is a huge burden, but I'm happy to have it, and our overall percentage of poverty is less. Less rich people, but an overall better quality of life for everyone. Like I said, I pay $54 a month for health care, and thats because of my income. Lower incomes pay less or even none. Can you imagine how much money a country of 360 million could come up with for healthcare if they paid premiums like we do? What's the issue? Are you guys really okay with leaving your health in the hands of insurance companies?

[starbuck]

Now you're just making an ad hominem argument...I think you're letting confirmation bias prevent you from viewing the thread objectively.

It's not really ad hominem unless I attack you personally. Pointing out that others countered your argument and that I agreed with them is not an attack. As for the confirmation bias? It's sort of a way of turning the whole thing into a "your mama" fight. Kind of derails the issue, don't you think?

What's your rationale for saying it's morally justified? Who are you to determine what's morally right and what's morally wrong?

My rationale is that human life > financial profit. I'm allowed opinions on the subject. Who are you to decide free roads are better than free healthcare? See, the argument goes both ways. These are all just opinions as you well know.

Am I religious? No. Is it revelant? Not to me. Why is it relevant to you?

[Petit Papillon]

I've read recently some info (from the cathegory 'And what Obama thinks about it?' ),that 40 or 50 millions(I don't remember exactly and I don't feel like checking it now) of Americans often have nothing to eat. How that's a problem too. My country has 40 mln of citizens. It's hard to imagine that so many people in such a 'rich country' may have nothing to eat.

Maybe this sounds socialistic,but... If every person on the world who has more than a 1 million $ on their account ,would give just 100 bucks (come on it's nothing comparing to 1 million) for poor people allover the world,there would be no people suffer from hunger... But let's be honest. Normal people with average salary are ready to give more to poor people than those really really rich peope who really don't need that much... It's sad... They could solve so many problems giving so few... Sad sad