Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Why Is Denmark So Happy?" video.

  1. Having 5 million people with diversity helps. Also, happiness is subjective.
    3
  2. Japan has high debt, low GDP per capita and high suicide rates.
    3
  3. College is much more than gathering knowledge. It is about gathering skills and developing connections. People who think it is simply about learning topics are not viewing college correctly.
    2
  4. Happiness is subjective. You can't say that one person is happier than the other.
    2
  5. It has nothing to do with racism but instead different cultures. Why are you so racists that you feel all black people should be the same, or all asians, or all whites? I bet you think all black people listen to rap and like fry chicken.
    2
  6. 1. You have to understand what money is. Money solved two problems in economics. a: The double incidence of wants problem b: The retention of values problem It is a universal means of trade. But in the end money is not going to perform surgery on you, a doctor is. Money is not going to teach you physics, a professor is. You can have all the money in the world but if no one is there to provide any goods and/or services it doesn't matter. Just creating more money, which is what you are suggesting, creates inflation. But in the end you can't consume what you don't produce. To give an example a public school by my hometown does not teach calculus or physics because there is no one there to teach it. To give another example we have a waiting list for organs because there are not enough. The idea that we can just "train doctors" isn't that easy. Being a doctor is a rewarding field financially. People don't do it because a: they can't b: they don't want to But as for money that is not an issue. You will be rewarding financially with that career. People just don't do it. And if you create an entitlement society less people will push for careers like that. "An Economy cannot exist without Government spending, and Economy cannot exist without Government" I will agree but you have to get your money's worth. You have to see if your money is being spent well and not wasted. You do that by keeping government as local as possible. Watch the Youtube video "Milton Friedman Crushes Man's Three Questions Like Dixie Cups" "The United States already limits who goes to College, Colleges will only accept people with the approporate Grades, though there is another more insidious barrier to College in the United States whcih is; "How wealthy are your Parents"" Many colleges such as CC and JuCo will accept students with low grades. They are also very cheap. As for income we have the loan program. While I felt that increased tuition by increasing demand without increasing supply, the loans are not that bad. If you pursue the right degrees you will earn a lot later to easily pay off that loan and be well off. It isn't about "how wealthy are your parents". My parents were poor. I pulled out a loan, went to college, got two degrees in the STEM fields and I am now a doctoral candidate. It can be done. 2. It is myth. Watch the video entitled "Cenk Said to Google It, So I Did | Ben Shapiro vs Cenk Uygur Politicon Debate" by Matt Christiansen Fast forward to 7:40 is where he starts to talk about identity politics. Both sides have used it in the past. I will allow you watch that. A lot of the Southern Strategy was economic, not race. As for Lee Atwater, that is one person. So one person represents the entire party? If you want to play that game what about Bernie Sanders saying that white people can't be poor? 3. The WHO, to me, is a questionable source. I say that as a doctoral candidate in that I see no authors listed in their material, including that ranking. I see no credentials or background. But that aside, that ranking compared the US to countries like Malta and San Marino. San Marino has a population small enough we can fit it in one of our football stadiums with room to spare. It is driven off of being a tax haven and tourism. A small country that attracts money is going to be successful. Is that a valid comparison. Also, read the book "The Business of Health" by Prof. Robert Ohsfeldt and Prof. John Schneider. They run through the stats and show that the differences are minute. Prof. Ohsfeldt called those rankings arbitrary as many variables are involved in the numbers. For example, if you remove murder and car accidents the US is number 1 in life expectancy. People can, in a legit way, manage the numbers to make the US to be number 1 in healthcare. " they cover all their Citizens," No country covers all of their citizens. On paper they do, but not in reality. That is why people die on waiting lists. Read the paper "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" in Can J Cardiol. If they covered all of their patients then why did those people die? To give an example in the US on paper everyone has access to K-12 education. By why do people with high school diplomas struggle with 4th grade math? Point is that just because on paper something is true does not mean it is true in reality. "Public Insurance will always be more efficient that private for-profit Insurance as there is no overhead for shareholders, ceos, advertising etc......" Not really. Both have advantages and disadvantages that we can discuss later as this is a long topic. However, I find it frustrating how the left love to just take the word of a simple, arbitrary list on a complex issues that professors and researchers continue to still study. It isn't that easy as "look at this ranking". 4. "Every Nation that has implemented Universal Healthcare Since then as kept it, not one has gone over to the American System, why is that?." Because that is what they are used to. They were raised on it and it has been around for generations. It does many things well but has many shortcomings. Same with the US. The US system does many things well and has many shortcomings. 80% of voters in Colorado voted against universal healthcare. After Obamacare democrats lost. People in the US aren't rushing to change to a universal healthcare system. It goes both ways. "Most States in the Union, would not have the revenue to operate, if it were not for the Federal Government..." 100% not true. Government has nothing until it takes in a form of a tax. The federal government has nothing until it taxes the citizens. Same with states and local governments. The idea that the federal government has the resources is wrong. Again, 84% of K-12 funding is state and local. Only 8% if federal (the rest is private). In fact, at the very beginning before 1913 the federal government taxed the states. It was taking money from the states. States took money from the citizens and the federal government took money from the states. The federal government has literally zero.
    2
  7. Ragitsu, it isn't racist. Look at Chad. That country is very diverse and is a mess. Larger diversity means more issues to deal with.
    1
  8. It is a culture thing. Happiness is subjective as well. This is a bad analysis and should not be taken seriously.
    1
  9. it is subjective. People in varying standards in life are happy or depressed. Someone who is very rich can be depressed. Someone who doesn't have much is happy. It is 100% subjective.
    1
  10. It is subjective. What makes you happy is different than what makes others happy. That is your personality. There is a nature side to it and a nurture side to it. A small example, I have a 20 inch TV I was given in 2006. Still works. One of my friends says I need to buy a bigger one that is a flat screen. I don't because the TV I have makes me happy. I don't need something "better". Others do. You also have to realize that being "content" can also be considered being "happy". But again, it is 100% subjective.
    1
  11. Parth, some of these same "happiness" studies have shown that people with a lot of money does not make you happy. https://hbr.org/2016/06/why-rich-people-arent-as-happy-as-they-could-be
    1
  12. Denmark also have mandatory military.
    1
  13. A few months is a long time.
    1
  14. Happiness is subjective. Also, 5 million people with little diversity plays a role. But again, happiness is subjective. As for "free healthcare" and "free college", that is their society. That is how they were raised and how generations behind them were raised. They are used to that lifestyle. It doesn't mean it is better or worse, it is what they are used to.
    1
  15. Patrick Jensen, if your goal is to have happy people you can achieve that with communism. Same with killing people. There is value in people's happiness, but it is a non-objective standard to look at. Saying one country is happier than another is purely subjective and should be taken with a grain of salt.
    1
  16. Ragitsu, it isn't racist to point out facts. Look at the US. There is a strong correlation of states with high crime and states with a higher percentage of blacks. There is also a correlation of Asians having higher income. Those are facts which are not racist.
    1
  17. I like how people say PragerU is bad but can never explain why. It is similar to those who criticize Ben Shapiro but can never give examples of how he is wrong.
    1
  18. Atheist Proletariat, care to give some examples?
    1
  19. David B, I watched that video. He did not say it was stupid. He said that following your passion can prevent you from finding your true talents, or can hurt you as your passion does not equal ability.
    1
  20. Anil Singh, the problem of following one's passion is, as that guy put it in that video, is that people become unaware of the truth. They may want to be a famous singer but fail to realize they suck. I work with someone who feels they are PhD material but in reality they aren't. People need to face reality. The point of the video, if you actually watched it (I doubt you did) is that you should be passionate. As they said, bring your passion with you. But realize that you may not be fit for certain jobs. I love football and I am passionate about it. I was never good enough to play. An alternative is that I became a football referee. I am passionate about that, but I realize that I may never go above being a JuCo ref. If I do great, but if not I am enjoying what I am at now. As for the couch comparison and Ben Shapiro, he is correct. Healthcare is a commodity. We need to treat it as such. When you realize that and do treat it as that we can discuss healthcare reform. The reality is that some procedures and drugs will be more expensive. Heart surgery will cost more than a routine checkup. That is the reality. That is why healthcare is not a right. It is a commodity that someone has to provide. When you realize that then we can discuss healthcare reform and types of systems. You simply saying "Ben Shapiro compared purchasing health insurance to buying a couch." Is not getting into detail. How does that make him an idiot? You have to explain. Just highlighting what he said does nothing. Those who have a bias against him will agree with you, but those who don't will not follow, and after my detail analysis will actually follow me. This again shows how you can't explain how they are wrong, you simply say they are.
    1
  21. Parth, they don't consider this channel to be propaganda as they are far leftists. That is why when they attack PragerU and Ben Shapiro they just say "they are stupid" as opposed to have an intelligent rebuttal or reason.
    1
  22. Bamabas, they don't. They simply say they are wrong. If they do in any way I give my counter arguments. As with the following your passion video from PragerU, I explained what they met and how it they are not "complete idiots". With Ben Shapiro people keep pointing to the couch tweet on healthcare and I explained how he is saying we need to treat healthcare as a commodity. All I hear is "he compared healthcare to a couch, he is an idiot". That is not an argument. I don't agree with everything PragerU and Ben Shapiro say. I can give examples if you want. But many just hate them because they are conservative and can't give any other reason why.
    1
  23. 1. Social security is running out of money. Even at that social security does not require skilled workers in order to operate it. Education and healthcare does. Social security is simply taking money and giving it to a group of people. Healthcare and education are actual commodities. As for resources, we lack skilled workers in education and healthcare. The government does not have a magic wand. No government does. That is why in countries like Denmark they limit who can attend college thus if you don't qualify you can't go. In countries with universal healthcare systems people die on waiting lists for "elective" care. 2. The "southern strategy" is mainly a myth. As for divide and conquer, which party continues to play identity politics? The democrats. 3. Defense spending is around 3% of GDP. Healthcare is 1/6 of GDP. Simple math shows that attacking the defense budget won't change anything. Even at that since the 1950s federal government spending as a percent of GDP went up around 6%. Since 1960 defense spending went down 7%. So the idea of cutting defense spending and paying for other welfare programs at the federal level has been happening for over 50 years. Now the idea that "under a Full Medicare For All System, that would be alot lower, maybe 12-13%" is based off of no evidence unless you want to lower the quality like other countries do. The US pays $1 trillion in healthcare at the federal level. The reason why healthcare costs so much in the US is because a: We lead the world in research and innovation in healthcare. High quality and progress cost money b: We do not have a free market system. We have a for profit system with a lot of government regulations. The payroll tax is one major barrier in my opinion. 4. The idea of healthcare and education being provided by government was around in 1787, the founding fathers left it to the states. 84% of public education funding is from the state and local governments. States run our K-12 education, not the federal government. This was all covered in the 10th amendment. As for the "General Welfare Clause" it was to "promote" general welfare, not provide. As for the "commerce clause" it was to establish commerce between states. To break the design down the federal government was there to serve the states, not the people. The federal government is made up of the states. That is why only the states were taxed and why we have the electoral college. The commerce clause was to settle disputes between two states such as Rhode Island decided to tax citizens of New York higher they can't. Or with driver's license, I have one from Nevada. I can drive all across the country with it. The states are there to serve the people and the people make up the states. All governments were restricted by the Constitution. States ran education if they wanted. States ran healthcare if they wanted. All the way down to police and fire departments. Many places have private fire departments and around 70% of fire fighters are volunteer. That is how those local governments decided to run it. Any questions?
    1
  24. To add, on defense. Denmark has mandatory military service. That saves money in defense and influences the culture.
    1
  25. Also, when challenged by Ted Cruz on his cost Bernie Sanders never denied the cost of his programs. And when cornered he admitted he has to raise taxes on everyone. Even at that Bernie still showed a complete lack of understanding of the programs he supports.
    1
  26. "Bernie Sanders is a Terrible Debator." Nope, beyond his talking points he has no clue what he is talking about.
    1
  27. Agnese Lind, Cruz has a law degree and is very intelligent. I feel most politicians are intelligent, including Obama whom I disagreed with. Bernie Sanders is an exception to me as I do feel he is an idiot. The best example is when the guy from Denmark said what he did and Cruz ran through hard numbers on Denmark's healthcare system. Cruz understood their system. Bernie, who wants to copy their system, didn't. He simply asked the guy from Denmark to come back and give his anecdotal experience on the issue. Apparently to Bernie that is all he needs, one person's experience. If he wants to play that game my experience with the US system has been great. But that aside, the fact is that Bernie knows nothing of the hard data on Denmark's healthcare system but he wants to copy it. That is very disturbing and is a sign to me that he is an idiot.
    1
  28. GravianS, what did I say that was wrong? At that point you don't have an argument.
    1
  29. Agnese Lind, there are several people who support tuition free education and public healthcare, I don't. I don't care who does on either side, I don't at the federal level. At the state level that is a different topic and we can discuss pros and cons, but not the federal. As for Bernie, he keeps pointing to countries like Denmark for a model. Even if he doesn't want to copy them he should understand how they work and the numbers behind them. He doesn't which is disturbing. He is running on an ideology as opposed to using objective facts. It is no different than when Cruz repeated several times how much Bernie's plan would cost and even if we tax the rich 100% we still won't be able to pay for his plans. Bernie never denied that. When cornered he admitted he will have to raise taxes on everyone. Now cost aside the US population will never agree to that. Several states don't even have an income tax. On that last part in order to establish Bernie's plan you have to radically change the tax code in a country of 320+ million people. Healthcare is 1/6 of our economy which will have to be change drastically as well. That will lead to a major recession as you are telling a country of 320+ million people they have to manage their finances differently. Almost every business and every consumer will stop investing until the market establishes itself again. Numbers aside implementing Bernie's plan at the federal level is impossible.
    1
  30. It isn't as easy as "we have more people and we have a bigger economy". Go back and read my comments. With a smaller populations you can micromanage these programs easier and people can agree on certain programs easier. Also, with a more local government you can control the government easier. I find it ironic how on social issues leftists preach about how people are different and we should embrace that and accept them. But on economic issues we are all of a sudden the same. Make up your mind.
    1
  31. GravianS, I never ran away. I just gave a peer reviewed paper and a book on an issue here. So I don't go deeper? You mock me because you can't come up with an intelligent rebuttal. I gave a detail opinion on the issues with support. And your only response is to mock me.
    1
  32. Autodidactus Plays JRPGs, medicare is running out of money and many doctors don't take it. A major reason why is because of lack of micromanaging. In economics you have to get the most of your resources. You do that by keeping government as local as possible to that any money spent by government you can see if it is actually being spent well. Also in economics you have people who have different personalities, wants, needs, habits, etc. You can't create a one size fits all policy of just giving out checks. It is much more complicated than that. Adding the rest of the population will not be that easy. Healthcare is 1/6 of our economy. Adding more people will mean raising taxes. Businesses will stop investing as the financial system will be drastically changed. People will have to adjust their expenses as now they have less money due to higher taxes. Many stocks are tied to healthcare. This drastic of a change will lead to a major recession. And as the numbers point out in the end universal healthcare is no better than what we already have. So you will create a major recession without improving anything in the end. We should improve the system we have. But again, people are different. A one size fits all policy does not work. 80% of people in Colorado did not want universal healthcare.
    1
  33. BrownsNation 007, well said.
    1
  34. Autodidactus Plays JRPGs, to add to population, look at nations with 100+ million people. Out of those nations the US is number 1 in GDP per capita. Now I know there is a lot more to those numbers then what I am presenting, but those nations have universal healthcare, including Russia. Is it working? I am not saying that universal healthcare can't work. In the right elements they can. Government programs can work very well in the right elements. One of those elements is a small population. The founding fathers saw that when the developed this country. That is why they created state rights. States were to develop programs they felt desirable. Not everyone wants universal healthcare. Many people feel it is not the best route to go in healthcare. Why do you want to force people to go against their economic ideas? As for GravianS talking about moving the goal posts and calling me a fool, he is just angry that he can't have a discussion with me. I am consistent in my stance of smaller, more local government. On the issues I am flexible. I have adjusted my stance on healthcare to where a few months ago I found support for a public option in healthcare for example. I just feel it needs to be done locally.
    1
  35. "He's clearly a moron because he couldn't counter any of my points without relying on unfalsifiable claims; and he never really established why large population countries cannot have a health service. Pay him no mind." In reality you can't support your case. You are saying this "More people, more money". That's it. When I break down that it isn't that easy you call me a moron. These issues are not that easy. Economists argue all the time on tax rates, government spending, regulations, etc. There is no one great route to go, there are many. Economics is a psychological study as well as it involves people. Some people don't want the government tampering with their healthcare. If they do it should be localize so that people can control the government. Too much government is just as bad as no government. Your idea is too simple which is why it doesn't work on the large scale. As I said, look at large countries with universal healthcare systems. Their economies are not doing well. Japan is to a point, but mainly because their workers literally work themselves to deaths. And their debt is much higher than the US and their GDP per capita is low.
    1
  36. To add one last thing, and at this point I doubt anyone will respond. But I love to challenge people. Too many people, on both sides, use talking points but don't actually think. As with the person who pointed to the WHO ranking in healthcare. I will ask, what were their methods? What was the data and statistical analysis they used? Who created that list as in the authors and what are their credentials? You can support whatever policy and political party you want. But it bothers me that so many just blindly follow something without question. Many follow that WHO ranking but will have no clue how it was actually created.
    1
  37. Admiral, it isn't about skin color. It is about culture. The US has 320+ million people with states larger than countries. The culture is diverse in the US. Living in the midwest for 20+ years and now living out west in the US for about 10 years the culture is different. I have experienced it. That is why you can't compare the US to Denmark.
    1
  38. "What does education, healthcare and other such issues have anything to do with culture though?" A lot. Education can be used as indoctrination. If the only healthcare service you receive is poor than you accept it as you know of nothing else. Even at that with Denmark being so developed healthcare is not as crucial as health problems are not severe. Same with the US. You also have to consider economic factors and political factors. Denmark has high taxes, the US doesn't in comparison. The US society will not accept tax rates of Denmark. We feel there are other methods in offering healthcare and education to people.
    1
  39. Koala, it has nothing to do with black people. You know two different cultures can be the same race. Why are you so racist?
    1
  40. Koala, we can't have federal universal healthcare as establishing it will lead to an economic recession.
    1
  41. Space Wizard, enough are doing it already. But yes, it is racist what he is saying. I am talking about culture, not race.
    1
  42. Koala, "How do different cultures prevent people from getting the same treatments? " Different lifestyles and different approaches in the system. For example, talking to a Canadian they said a major difference between the US healthcare system and Canada's is that in Canada you get care and leave. In the US you are more aggressive in understanding what type of care you are receiving, how long it will take, what is being done, etc. Another is that in Denmark around 50% of their money is taxed. In the US we won't accept that as we like to control more of our finances. "how is canada, which is very diverse, able to do it?" Canada has shortcomings in their system as well such as people dying on waiting lists for "elective" heart surgery. This leads into another issue of that universal healthcare systems are no better than what the US has. They all have shortcomings. This is another discussion in itself but it is a fact. I will link you a paper on the waiting lists. But as a whole it is a difference in how we approach these systems. In the US we like our money and like to control it. We are skeptical of government running things. And even at that, when we have government do things how it is done differs all throughout the country. As a small example 70% of fire fighters are volunteer, some areas have private fire departments and others have government ran fire departments. You want a one size fits all system which is making the false assumption that everyone thinks the same when they don't.
    1
  43. "If Canada’s system is as bad as you make it out to be, then the majority of the people in the country would not want it to go away. No one in Canada is longing for private insurance to come back" And no one in the US wants Canada's system. 80% said no in Colorado and every attempt to pass universal in states failed. People voted out democrats after Obamacare was passed. I never said Canada's system is bad. I said it has shortcomings as does the US system. It works for most people as does the US system. They were raised on it so they do not want to change it, as with the US. I don't see people rushing to change our system to a federally ran program, or even a state ran one.
    1
  44. "Are you seriously arguing that mindsets can’t change over time? " In a country of 320+ million people I would say no. It wasn't until Obama was elected that finally half of democrats supported legalizing gay marriage. If the mindset changes it takes a long time. But as a whole the US is driven off of people being aggressive and managing their lives as opposed to the government doing it. " The reason why Canada thinks as they do is because they don’t have to worry about medical bills or expenses, so they go and leave." Or maybe because they lived in that system. "Higher taxes? Canada pays barely any more taxes than we" They do, everything is expensive there. "And clearly the Scandinavian countries, even when they pay higher taxes, are far happier in a happiness indexes and studies than we are. " Happiness is a completely subjective quality to measure. There are no numbers to go off of. When you are raised under one system and experience nothing else, or hardly experience anything at all than you will be happy. "Yes you’ll pay higher taxes, but you’ll also save money from private insurance, thus keeping more money in your pocket." So I am supposed to trust a federal government that is $20 trillion in debt, and where the Pentagon lost a lot of money, and that sued credit rating agencies to save me money? You see, the mind set of US citizens is that won't happen. We can save our own money and get better quality products. "Your study is from 1991 to 2000. If you can produce me evidence of people dying at the same rate there as they do in America pre Aca (or even during aca), then you can show it to me." Studies like that take time to produce. That paper was released in 2006, so it looked at data that was at least 6 years old. But the point is that people in Canada do die due to shortcomings in their systems. To deny their shortcomings is being bias. I am not saying their system sucks, I am simply saying they have shortcomings and as a whole they are not any better than the US is.
    1
  45. Accelerationist, what makes you say that? The US is in the top 5 in productivity and has arguably the best university system in the world.
    1
  46. "Yes, productivity with low wages. Those universities are only for the people that can afford it. Finland has the best education system. Period." College is very cheap if you attend the right college and pursue the right degree. Get a degree in the STEM field from a small college and you will be fine. The US has the best university system in the world. As for education do you want good test takers or productive workers? What is your measure of a good education system?
    1
  47. "The government isn’t doing anything aside from using the tax money that you already pay to go to healthcare. You are still choosing where to go for treatment, which hospitals to choose, the doctors you want. " So what will prevent doctors from just raising prices or denying customers like they do with Medicare? "Gay marriage took time but eventually we did have approval. According to most polls, the majority of the people do think the government should provide some sort of healthcare." The government does in medicare and medicaid. 80% voted against it in Colorado and in every state they tried to implement in it failed. "Really nice way to dodge the studies that show these countries are far more satisfied with their country than Americans are. " It is stating a fact. There is not quantitative way to show happiness. It is purely subjective. It is similar to saying that blue is the best color. The best color for what? And why? It is subjective. "Their taxes are not that much higher." They are. "When every government in the world of an advanced nation pays less than we do on healthcare, when studies show how much we would save in relation to what we currently pay, it’s pretty obvious which system is superior." They don't produce better outcomes. What the US excels in is research and innovation of healthcare. We are number 1 in that. Healthcare costs are expensive because of that as R&D is expensive. Also, another reasons for prices being high is because we lack a free market system in healthcare. We have a for profit system with many government barriers that raises prices. LASIK is free from insurance and is free market. Over time it has become better and cheaper. But to simply say "other countries pay less" is ignoring a lot of variables. We can pay less, but our progress in research and innovation goes down. "Once again, if you can show me a study where 45000 people die every year due to lack of healthcare in Canada or other countries with a universal healthcare system, then show me that one. " Ah, the 45,000 value comes again. That number is highly deceptive as correlation does not equal causation. Those individuals are poor and there is a correlation of bad health amongst those in poverty such as higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking. So you can't say that those 45,000 die only because of lack of insurance or because of being in bad health to begin with. Also, 45,000 is 0.02% of the population. In comparison 30,000 die a year in traffic accidents. Do we take an extreme case and ban driving? Or do we work with the system we have and realize the benefits outweigh the negatives? Now that is not to say that people don't die due to lack of access to healthcare (which is also deceptive to say as legally the ER cannot turn people back), I am sure some do. But that number is small, and others die in other countries as well due to lack of healthcare resources. So when you say 45,000 die in the US, a country of 320+ million people, my reaction is "that's it?". As that number is small on the grand scale, especially considering how it is most likely not that big. "If you look at every state that has used the Medicaid expansion, the number of people who die in those states is minimal to none" That is not true, but OK. "Similarly, every other country with a universal system has next to 0 deaths due." Which again is not true which I showed you with that study. People do die due to lack of resources. Now if you want to simply say they are covered and thus don't die due to lack of coverage then that is setting the standard very low as on paper they are covered, but that is it. Just like on paper everyone has access to a K-12 education, but the gas station attendant could not give me the correct change the other day. On paper they have access. You need to be consistent with your standards.
    1
  48. So you have to work for a living. Boo hoo. In Denmark you still have to work to earn welfare.
    1
  49. I simply feel it is subjective.
    1
  50. M A, do you think that China's healthcare system is actually good?
    1
  51. moravec481, we do break the US in smaller portions. They are called states.
    1
  52. Population size is important. The more local government is the easier it is to control. The less people there are the easier it is to micromanage. Why do you think schools push for smaller classroom sizes? People are different and the more people you have the more diverse a culture is. That leads to greater challenges. I find it ironic how on social issues leftists praise the fact that everyone is different and embrace it. But on economic issues all of a sudden we are all the same. Make up your mind.
    1
  53. moravec481, lobbyists and donors are not that strong at the state level as the people have more control of local governments. Also, people can move if their state sucks. As for the federal government having authority, they do to a degree. But many programs the states run. For example, every state manages and established their own K-12 education system. As for diversity, the US is basically 50 countries in one. Canada has 1/10 of the population of the US. Across the country people are different in each state. Even take two neighboring states of Utah and Nevada. Utah is Mormon country and very religious with strict drinking laws. Nevada, not so much. Or even Nevada and CA. CA is very left leaning with NV is libertarian. Canada has 1/10 of the population than the US and 4/5 of them leave near the border. As for having a "well-functioning single payer healthcare system", that is debatable as they have many shortcomings. But I can give you that. Look at countries with 100+ million people. They have universal healthcare systems and their economies are not doing well. Japan is OK, but they have high debt and low GDP per capita. And arguably they are doing well only because people literally work themselves to death.
    1
  54. moravec481, you gave two examples where the CA one was simply a fact that it was going to double CA's budget they have a hard enough time paying off. "Every healthcare system has its shortcomings. However, in the developed world, none but the US manage to fail so hard as to leave 30 million people without basic healthcare necessities." That is not true. People lack care in other countries. As for that 30 million, that is an exaggeration. "Sure, the US has a high GDP per capita for a population of its magnitude. Part of that is actually due to a high cost of living with a lack of price controls" Cost of living is low in the US. When you include PPP the US is above many European countries in GDP per capita. Only 15% of the country is in poverty. As for half earning $30K or less, I have not seen a reliable source showing that. Even at that you are ignoring many variables. How many are a second or third earner? How many have a spouse? How many are college students who are a few years away from earning much more? How many have roommates? I earn $23,000 a year. I have a reliable car, my own place and I am a doctoral candidate. You cant just throw numbers out there.
    1
  55. M A, what does race have to do with it? You do know two completely different cultures can be the same race? Pays less with lower quality. You get what you pay for. If your standard is simply paying less than that is a low standard to have. People are not pushing for privatization of government. You are taking this to the extreme.
    1
  56. It depends on where in the US your friend lived. In the Bay area things are expensive and traffic sucks. I will be miserable there as well. But in rural areas, or even in cities like Kansas City or Des Moines traffic is not an issue and prices are low. People are happy there. The US is diverse and you can't just make a conclusion off of a short time here in a select areas.
    1
  57. In the US we enjoy the freedom of controlling our own finances. In terms of outcomes the US does many things well. It is a difference in culture. The vast majority in the US like the US system and objectively things are great.
    1
  58. Lord Dayu, that 45,000 is a deceptive number. To start, that is 0.02% of the population in the US so my initial reaction is "that's it?". I say that as in every system people die due to shortcomings in they healthcare system. For example, people die in Canada due to waiting for "elective" heart surgery. Look up the paper "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" in Can J Cardiol. Next, those people are poor and there is a strong correlation of people who are poor and bad health due to personal choices such as higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking. So you can't say that they die only because of lack of insurance. They could have died simply due to bad health. That 45,000 is a correlation and correlation does not equal causation. I don't live in a bubble. I just don't take talking points on face value. I actually look into them. I suggest you do the same.
    1
  59. Atheist, that is a very intelligent response you gave there. "No one likes our current system you moron." Not true. 80% of voters in Colorado voted against universal healthcare for example. " Half if not more are living near proverty" Poverty rate is around 15%. "rime rate are going up," It is actually going down. " along with suicides" It is going up worldwide.
    1
  60. Atheist Proletariat, if they were "tricked" that easily then maybe those who support universal healthcare should push their ideas harder. Or maybe it is an easy topic to argue against. Or maybe the people don't want it. The fact that 67% live paycheck to paycheck does not mean they are poor. It means they have poor money management skills. Trump hasn't been president for even a year and suicides have not doubled under him.
    1
  61. Ragna Eyjadottir, 14th in what? Happiness? That is subjective and should not be used as a comparison.
    1
  62. It is subjective, just like beauty and intelligence. People who point to happiness rankings are very foolish. A country can be ranked high in happiness but still have low standards objectively.
    1
  63. "Secondly .. why is the government better in providing health care.. To stick to the doctor example. When sick, i seek out a professional .. and when it is about political negotiations, i think a politician is the one to go to. Its their job, they know best. " Really? So you can't negotiate prices? Or you can't find the best bargain? You are going to trust the government to do it? "Then there are simple reasons like .. a government representing a country has more trade power than an individual representing himself. A country can ask for terms and prices that a single person cannot." And doctors can just quit. "While person A might be more than willing to give to person B... he might be hesitant to give to person C. Freedom of choice alright.. but person As freedom makes person C suffer." Not really. Let us say person C is lazy and worthless? Even at that, why should I give money to a complete stranger? "Otherwise it is not a fair process but a popularity contest." Well it comes down to this. If you can't provide for yourself and you don't have friends and/or family to help you out, what are your worth in society? Now that is not to say I am 100% opposed to government welfare programs, but you have to consider that. If Person C in your example is in a terrible position and no one cares about him, what are they worth?
    1