Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: dario73 on October 28, 2013, 01:06:33 PM
-
Atop her priority list as Speaker, she said, would be “comprehensive affordable, quality childcare” for working mothers, which she sees as a natural extension of ObamaCare.
Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/330825-pelosi-we-can-win-#ixzz2j36Qvj34
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
-
It never ends with these libtards.
She says it is a natural extension of crapcare.
-
I think I've read that they do this in France. Like public education, it might be a good thing for the future of the country. I'd need to think about it (but won't unless it seems like has a chance of becoming a reality).
I'll tell you what, though, I'd never vote for this unless I got some kind of break on my child support payments.
-
I think I've read that they do this in France. Like public education, it might be a good thing for the future of the country. I'd need to think about it (but won't unless it seems like has a chance of becoming a reality).
I'll tell you what, though, I'd never vote for this unless I got some kind of break on my child support payments.
yes b/c france is the country we want to model ourselves after ::)
fuking idiot
at what point do you think the govt shouldnt take away from one group to give hand outs to others?
-
Does not surprise me. The things liberals embrace as the government's responsibility are just wrongheaded.
-
Does not surprise me. The things liberals embrace as the government's responsibility are just wrongheaded.
What % of liberals support this extreme measure? I'm sure it's low.
-
yes b/c france is the country we want to model ourselves after ::)
fuking idiot
at what point do you think the govt shouldnt take away from one group to give hand outs to others?
Right now, the government takes away from working people (middle class, working poor, whatever you want to call them) and redistributes it to the corporations.
-
Right now, the government takes away from working people (middle class, working poor, whatever you want to call them) and redistributes it to the corporations.
Are you including the nearly 50 percent of working people that don't pay federal income taxes?
-
Are you including the nearly 50 percent of working people that don't pay federal income taxes?
I'm certain that if you add up all the total taxes those people pay, it's a higher percentage of their total earnings than anyone making north of 250K pays.
-
Right now, the government takes away from working people (middle class, working poor, whatever you want to call them) and redistributes it to the corporations.
really you mean those 50% that dont pay income tax?
-
I'm certain that if you add up all the total taxes those people pay, it's a higher percentage of their total earnings than anyone making north of 250K pays.
Any percentage of zero is still zero.
The people and small businesses making north of $250k pay the lion's share of taxes in this country.
In any event, saying the government takes from people who don't pay federal income taxes and "redistributes it to the corporations" is not true. Where are you getting that from?
-
I'm certain that if you add up all the total taxes those people pay, it's a higher percentage of their total earnings than anyone making north of 250K pays.
hahahah what a fucking tard...dont let the facts get in the way there libtard
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/04/19/the-laughable-economic-fallacies-embraced-by-progressives/2/
official IRS data showed that in 2007 the top 1% of income earners paid 40.4% of all federal income taxes, almost twice their share of adjusted gross income. The top 5% paid 60.6% of all federal income taxes, while earning 37.7% of adjusted gross income. The top 10% paid 71.2% of all income taxes, while earning 48% of adjusted gross income.
By contrast, the bottom 95% of income earners paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1% of income earners paid more federal income taxes than the bottom 95% combined!
-
Any percentage of zero is still zero.
You forgot "BOOOOOM!!!!" beach
libtard math 100% of 0 is greater than 95% of 100
-
hahahah what a fucking tard...dont let the facts get in the way there libtard
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/04/19/the-laughable-economic-fallacies-embraced-by-progressives/2/
official IRS data showed that in 2007 the top 1% of income earners paid 40.4% of all federal income taxes, almost twice their share of adjusted gross income. The top 5% paid 60.6% of all federal income taxes, while earning 37.7% of adjusted gross income. The top 10% paid 71.2% of all income taxes, while earning 48% of adjusted gross income.
By contrast, the bottom 95% of income earners paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1% of income earners paid more federal income taxes than the bottom 95% combined!
Boy you're stupid. What part of total taxes paid do you struggle with understanding?
-
You forgot "BOOOOOM!!!!" beach
libtard math 100% of 0 is greater than 95% of 100
You math sounds culturally biased.
-
Boy you're stupid. What part of total taxes paid do you struggle with understanding?
do you not think that others dont pay those same taxes?
LMFAO
-
do you not think that others dont pay those same taxes?
LMFAO
If you make $20,000 a year and you have to buy food, clothes gasoline or any other necessity for survival you are spending half you're money on taxes of some kind.
Now if you make $200,000 a year and have to buy food, clothes, gasoline or any other necessity for survival your no longer spending half on taxes of some kind. You may pay more in TOTAL dollars, but in terms of percentage of income? It's not even close.
-
If you make $20,000 a year and you have to buy food, clothes gasoline or any other necessity for survival you are spending half you're money on taxes of some kind.
Now if you make $200,000 a year and have to buy food, clothes, gasoline or any other necessity for survival your no longer spending half on taxes of some kind. You may pay more in TOTAL dollars, but in terms of percentage of income? It's not even close.
Don't have kids if you make that little.
-
If you make $20,000 a year and you have to buy food, clothes gasoline or any other necessity for survival you are spending half you're money on taxes of some kind.
Now if you make $200,000 a year and have to buy food, clothes, gasoline or any other necessity for survival your no longer spending half on taxes of some kind. You may pay more in TOTAL dollars, but in terms of percentage of income? It's not even close.
But heres the thing. You use just as many of the govt services, probably more, as the top 1% so why should you pay less for those services? How much someone makes is irrelecant unless you are a socialist. Are you a socialist?
-
Don't have kids if you make that little.
I don't disagree with you about that, but it's really not my point.
Single guy making 20K has to eat, buy clothes and travel to and from work, grocery stores doctors, whatever.
Single guy making 200K has to do the same.
Guy making 20K spends 5K on food, clothing, medical, gas whatever.
Guy making 200K spends the same.
Both guys pay about 28% in taxes.
20K guy = 5K + 5K = 10K in total taxes which is 50% of his earnings
200K guy = 5K + 50K = 55K in total taxes which is 27.5% of his earnings
So if 20K guy didn't have to pay 28% and instead paid zero he'd be out 5K total of his 20K earnings. Which is 25% and is much closer to the guy making 200K.
-
I don't disagree with you about that, but it's really not my point.
Single guy making 20K has to eat, buy clothes and travel to and from work, grocery stores doctors, whatever.
Single guy making 200K has to do the same.
Guy making 20K spends 5K on food, clothing, medical, gas whatever.
Guy making 200K spends the same.
Both guys pay about 28% in taxes.
20K guy = 5K + 5K = 10K in total taxes which is 50% of his earnings
200K guy = 5K + 50K = 55K in total taxes which is 27.5% of his earnings
So if 20K guy didn't have to pay 28% and instead paid zero he'd be out 5K total of his 20K earnings. Which is 25% and is much closer to the guy making 200K.
Don't get me wrong, I totally believe excise taxes, like the sales taxes and the gas tax, are extremely unfair to the lower end of the economic spectrum.
-
I don't disagree with you about that, but it's really not my point.
Single guy making 20K has to eat, buy clothes and travel to and from work, grocery stores doctors, whatever.
Single guy making 200K has to do the same.
Guy making 20K spends 5K on food, clothing, medical, gas whatever.
Guy making 200K spends the same.
Both guys pay about 28% in taxes.
20K guy = 5K + 5K = 10K in total taxes which is 50% of his earnings
200K guy = 5K + 50K = 55K in total taxes which is 27.5% of his earnings
So if 20K guy didn't have to pay 28% and instead paid zero he'd be out 5K total of his 20K earnings. Which is 25% and is much closer to the guy making 200K.
ahh no they guys making 200k has a more expensive car, house and pays for more entertainment than the 20k guy.
-
ahh no they guys making 200k has a more expensive car, house and pays for more entertainment than the 20k guy.
And more importantly he has most likely earned that right. How about the 20k guy try to raise his level instead of pulling the 200k down to his? Breeds mediocrity.
-
And more importantly he has most likely earned that right. How about the 20k guy try to raise his level instead of pulling the 200k down to his? Breeds mediocrity.
hahah exactly, why should I be punished b/c I put myself through school taking out loans, going to school at night while working full time and worked hard all the while.
Fuck you abraham go get stick your hands in some other persons pocket
-
Don't get me wrong, I totally believe excise taxes, like the sales taxes and the gas tax, are extremely unfair to the lower end of the economic spectrum.
How so when they qualify for the earned income tax credit, and wind up getting back more money than they put in?
-
How so when they qualify for the earned income tax credit, and wind up getting back more money than they put in?
I acknowledge this is true for a lower income earner. You are absolutely correct on this.
-
I acknowledge this is true for a lower income earner. You are absolutely correct on this.
not only that but the 200k guy is contributing to social security much more than he will ever get back to help pay for the social security the 20k guy will get which will be much more than he ever puts in...
-
In most cases luck and circumstance account for ones socioeconomic standing. The greatest LIE ever told is that "all men are created equal". It's overwhelmingly true that in general, if you're born poor, you die poor. If you don't have bootstraps, you cannot possibly pull yourself up.
-
not only that but the 200k guy is contributing to social security much more than he will ever get back to help pay for the social security the 20k guy will get which will be much more than he ever puts in...
Another salient point. I posted something related to this subject the other day.
In most cases luck and circumstance account for ones socioeconomic standing. The greatest LIE ever told is that "all men are created equal". It's overwhelmingly true that in general, if you're born poor, you die poor. If you don't have bootstraps, you cannot possibly pull yourself up.
Don't forget genetics. Some people are just smarter than others.
-
In most cases luck and circumstance account for ones socioeconomic standing. The greatest LIE ever told is that "all men are created equal". It's overwhelmingly true that in general, if you're born poor, you die poor. If you don't have bootstraps, you cannot possibly pull yourself up.
not at all a fact, please cite your sources.
there is more than enough opportunity and support in america for just about anybody to make something of themselves and improve their situation.
I was raised in a lower to middle middle class family, went to public schools my entire life, went to public college up until graduate school that I paid for through work and loans and worked hard both at school and professionally. I have a few bosses who all make 7 figures and now I have the real possibility that I will be able to make 7 figures in the future.
Please explain how my being in this position is luck
-
In most cases luck and circumstance account for ones socioeconomic standing. The greatest LIE ever told is that "all men are created equal". It's overwhelmingly true that in general, if you're born poor, you die poor. If you don't have bootstraps, you cannot possibly pull yourself up.
It is true that some have to work harder than others. It is also true that poverty is cyclical and success breeds success. And I agree that it is difficult for a kid trapped in a cycle of poverty to break free. So from that standpoint, there is some luck involved, because you cannot choose your parents or the environment you grow up in.
That said, there is no secret to how the majority of people in this country have succeeded: hard work. I've mentioned this many times on the board before, but you should check out the book The Millionaire Next Door (and it's sequel The Millionaire Mind). It's a twenty-year study of Americans with a net worth of $1 million or more. One of the things it shows is the overwhelming majority of American millionaires did not inherit their money. They earned it through hard work, saving, investing, and living below their means.
At the end of the day, no person is a prisoner of circumstance. At least not in America. The fact some have to work harder than others to be successful is a part of life.
-
Another salient point. I posted something related to this subject the other day.
Don't forget genetics. Some people are just smarter than others.
Yes, exactly. Some people are smarter, more talented and what not. The old saying that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link needs to be applied in this country. We would all benefit from better schools and dare I say universally educated schools and less prisons. Make the investment in children and save money down the road by not paying for prison, welfare and the like. Whatever happened to helping the least among us?
-
Yes, exactly. Some people are smarter, more talented and what not. The old saying that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link needs to be applied in this country. We would all benefit from better schools and dare I say universally educated schools and less prisons. Make the investment in children and save money down the road by not paying for prison, welfare and the like. Whatever happened to helping the least among us?
what happend is people got tired of constantly being bilked by the "wont someone think of the children" line.
we spend more money on education than most civilized countries. The system in america isnt perfect but to say that the system is the reason for people failing is just fuking ignorant.
At what point does it become your personal responsibility to make sure you do what is needed?
-
what happend is people got tired of constantly being bilked by the "wont someone think of the children" line.
we spend more money on education than most civilized countries. The system in america isnt perfect but to say that the system is the reason for people failing is just fuking ignorant.
At what point does it become your personal responsibility to make sure you do what is needed?
You're fucking ignorant. I live in Southeast Michigan. Detroit Public Schools gets about $3K per student. 10-12 miles away in Northville, you get $13K per student. So yes, assuming we spend more on education is correct, it's is skewed in favor of the affluent. Give me universal education for a generation and then let's see where we're at. My wife taught in Detroit. She was allowed "1" pack of copy paper per year. That is not a misprint, "1" pack. We had to spend money on school supplies as well as use my copy machine at work because her school only had one. Plus, you have kids in Detroit coming to school hungry, cold and impoverished.
I know your response, pick yourself up. Self reliance. Got it.
-
You're fucking ignorant. I live in Southeast Michigan. Detroit Public Schools gets about $3K per student. 10-12 miles away in Northville, you get $13K per student. So yes, assuming we spend more on education is correct, it's is skewed in favor of the affluent. Give me universal education for a generation and then let's see where we're at. My wife taught in Detroit. She was allowed "1" pack of copy paper per year. That is not a misprint, "1" pack. We had to spend money on school supplies as well as use my copy machine at work because her school only had one. Plus, you have kids in Detroit coming to school hungry, cold and impoverished.
I know your response, pick yourself up. Self reliance. Got it.
not that I dont trust you but you have a habit of being wrong on facts and just lying outright at times so please cite your sources.
Ill cite some now that say detriot public schools spend 15K per student.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/11/detroit-schools-are-well-funded-terrible
(The Mackinac Center for Public Policy claims (PDF) that Detroit actually spent $15,570 per pupil in 2010
Now again I am not arguing that some dont have it harder than others. I had it much harder than others I knew growing up and have still grown up to be succesful. That doesnt mean I was "lucky" to be able to achieve what I have.
Again at what point does it become your personal responsibility to make sure you do what needs to be done?
-
not that I dont trust you but you have a habit of being wrong on facts and just lying outright at times so please cite your sources.
Ill cite some now that say detriot public schools spend 15K per student.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/11/detroit-schools-are-well-funded-terrible
(The Mackinac Center for Public Policy claims (PDF) that Detroit actually spent $15,570 per pupil in 2010
Now again I am not arguing that some dont have it harder than others. I had it much harder than others I knew growing up and have still grown up to be succesful. That doesnt mean I was "lucky" to be able to achieve what I have.
Again at what point does it become your personal responsibility to make sure you do what needs to be done?
I'm going to be drug into a copy and paste war. Mackinac Center is a right wing "think" tank. But here goes.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/97916.asp
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/02/19/183590/rich-poor-spending-gap-on-schools.html
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/102253/The-Price-of-Hope-Investigating-Disparities-Among-Rich-and-Poor-Schools.aspx
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-11-07/news/ct-met-school-funding-gaps-20111107_1_spending-gap-taft-s-district-poorest-schools
-
I'm going to be drug into a copy and paste war. Mackinac Center is a right wing "think" tank. But here goes.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/97916.asp
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/02/19/183590/rich-poor-spending-gap-on-schools.html
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/102253/The-Price-of-Hope-Investigating-Disparities-Among-Rich-and-Poor-Schools.aspx
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-11-07/news/ct-met-school-funding-gaps-20111107_1_spending-gap-taft-s-district-poorest-schools
Lol let me get this right you complain about the source I use as being a rep think tank and them process to post the Chicago tribune? Lmfao
From what I read your instances are from different districts. Why should I pay for schools not within my district? Or even my county?
And YOU STILL HAVEMT ANSWERED MY QUESTION: AT WHAT POINT DO YOU BECOME YOU PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?
-
yes b/c france is the country we want to model ourselves after ::)
fuking idiot
at what point do you think the govt shouldnt take away from one group to give hand outs to others?
How are you inferring that I'm saying we should model our country after France (holy fuck you are dense). I meant only to point out that there was at least one 1st world country that does this.
But I guess you think France is bad, huh? Tell us what you know about France, you jingoistic dumbshit. Maybe you could start with how their healthcare system compares to ours. (BTW, I hope you have the excuse of being on tren or something because you come off like an emotional bitch who is not very well informed.)
-
How are you inferring that I'm saying we should model our country after France (holy fuck you are dense). I meant only to point out that there was at least one 1st world country that does this.
But I guess you think France is bad, huh? Tell us what you know about France, you jingoistic dumbshit. Maybe you could start with how their healthcare system compares to ours. (BTW, I hope you have the excuse of being on tren or something because you come off like an emotional bitch who is not very well informed.)
Very good insight. LMAO.
-
How are you inferring that I'm saying we should model our country after France (holy fuck you are dense). I meant only to point out that there was at least one 1st world country that does this.
But I guess you think France is bad, huh? Tell us what you know about France, you jingoistic dumbshit. Maybe you could start with how their healthcare system compares to ours. (BTW, I hope you have the excuse of being on tren or something because you come off like an emotional bitch who is not very well informed.)
Jingoistic = 10 point word
Please tell me what makes you think the US Health care system sucks or is worse
-
How are you inferring that I'm saying we should model our country after France (holy fuck you are dense). I meant only to point out that there was at least one 1st world country that does this.
But I guess you think France is bad, huh? Tell us what you know about France, you jingoistic dumbshit. Maybe you could start with how their healthcare system compares to ours. (BTW, I hope you have the excuse of being on tren or something because you come off like an emotional bitch who is not very well informed.)
Visited France on a number of occasions. They are drowning in entitlement programs and with their unemployment rate, they arent going to be able to sustain them forever. That is why nationalistic politicians are on the rise. Combined with an immigration clusterfuck that they regret.
-
Jingoistic = 10 point word
Please tell me what makes you think the US Health care system sucks or is worse
lol. Yeah, kind of. Reminds me of Harlan Ellison.
Anyway, I don't know that the US healthcare system exactly sucks but a lot of folks seem to think France's is much better:
(In my reading about how ours stacks up to that of other countries, our crappy ranking always gets mentioned.)
(Note: this is from the year 2000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems
The World Health Organization (WHO) ranked the health systems of its 191 member states in its World Health Report 2000.
France was ranked #1. USA ranked #38 (behind #37 Costa Rica).
-
lol. Yeah, kind of. Reminds me of Harlan Ellison.
Anyway, I don't know that the US healthcare system exactly sucks but a lot of folks seem to think France's is much better:
(In my reading about how ours stacks up to that of other countries, our crappy ranking always gets mentioned.)
(Note: this is from the year 2000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems
The World Health Organization (WHO) ranked the health systems of its 191 member states in its World Health Report 2000.
France was ranked #1. USA ranked #38 (behind #37 Costa Rica).
hahahaha i knew your dumb ass would cite that shitty ass study that has been debunked on here time and time again...
give me a minute RRKore and Ill make you look stupider than you already do.
-
hahahaha i knew your dumb ass would cite that shitty ass study that has been debunked on here time and time again...
give me a minute RRKore and Ill make you look stupider than you already do.
Debunked on here. That is priceless. Getbig = the 21st century congressional budget office.
-
Just for starters...
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB125608054324397621
"The WHO ranking was ambitious in its scope, grading each nation's health care on five factors. Two of these were relatively uncontroversial: health level, which is roughly the average healthy lifespan of a nation's residents; and responsiveness, which is a sort of customer-service rating encompassing factors such as the system's speed, choice and quality of amenities. The other three measure inequality in health-care outcomes; responsiveness; and individual spending."
An even bigger problem was shared by all five of these factors: The underlying data about each nation generally weren't available. So WHO researchers calculated the relationship between those factors and other, available numbers, such as literacy rates and income inequality. Such measures, they argued, were linked closely to health in those countries where fuller health data were available. Even though there was no way to be sure that link held in other countries, they used these literacy and income data to estimate health performance.
-
Debunked on here. That is priceless. Getbig = the 21st century congressional budget office.
debunked by many and repeated on here, sorry brosef I didnt mean to take over such a large portion of your mind.
I know you need it to do your tough job, so please take a chill pill
-
Philip Musgrove, the editor-in-chief of the WHO report that accompanied the rankings, calls the figures that resulted from this step "so many made-up numbers," and the result a "nonsense ranking." Dr. Musgrove, an economist who is now deputy editor of the journal Health Affairs, says he was hired to edit the report's text but didn't fully understand the methodology until after the report was released. After he left the WHO, he wrote an article in 2003 for the medical journal Lancet criticizing the rankings as "meaningless."
-
Philip Musgrove, the editor-in-chief of the WHO report that accompanied the rankings, calls the figures that resulted from this step "so many made-up numbers," and the result a "nonsense ranking." Dr. Musgrove, an economist who is now deputy editor of the journal Health Affairs, says he was hired to edit the report's text but didn't fully understand the methodology until after the report was released. After he left the WHO, he wrote an article in 2003 for the medical journal Lancet criticizing the rankings as "meaningless."
Dude, I read this.
The first section of the wiki entry is "Criticism". It pointed out that the report received so much criticism that the WHO doesn't do a ranking anymore. So if this was the only report that was critical of the US system, you'd have a point....Unfortunately, Mr. Tony McGotcha, it's not the only study that does not favor our healthcare system. You must know this. If not, I'll put some links at the bottom of this post.
I'll concede that our healthcare is the most technologically advanced IF YOU HAVE MONEY FOR IT. But many, many, many don't. And even if you do have the money for it, you have to be willing to overpay for it. That's why you have medical tourism. (Because of the Thailand connection, I have heard a lot about this.) I'm sure you know have read that medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcy in our country. It's shameful. And speaking of shame, 14.9% of our population does not have healthcare insurance. Our per capita spending on healthcare is the highest in the world and yet our health (as measured by any common standard) is mediocre at best.
Links:
Here's Bloomberg's ranking of efficiency of healthcare among countries with advanced economies:
Hmmm. France only ranks #19 here. Oh, but USA is #46 (of 48. We beat Brazil, yee-haw.)
http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/most-efficient-health-care-countries
New England Journal of Medicine points out "...that in 2006, the United States was number 1 in terms of health care spending per capita but ranked 39th for infant mortality, 43rd for adult female mortality, 42nd for adult male mortality, and 36th for life expectancy."
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064
The Commonwealth Fund
The United States ranked last when compared to six other countries -- Britain, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand, the Commonwealth Fund report found.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/23/us-usa-healthcare-last-idUSTRE65M0SU20100623
Should I go on? Or are you finally willing to admit that the USA's healthcare system, relative to that of other countries like France, is poor?
-
Visited France on a number of occasions. They are drowning in entitlement programs and with their unemployment rate, they arent going to be able to sustain them forever. That is why nationalistic politicians are on the rise. Combined with an immigration clusterfuck that they regret.
Yeah, I've read the same and have no reason to doubt it. Apparently their immigrants don't work as hard as ours do or something.
-
You're fucking ignorant. I live in Southeast Michigan. Detroit Public Schools gets about $3K per student. 10-12 miles away in Northville, you get $13K per student. So yes, assuming we spend more on education is correct, it's is skewed in favor of the affluent. Give me universal education for a generation and then let's see where we're at. My wife taught in Detroit. She was allowed "1" pack of copy paper per year. That is not a misprint, "1" pack. We had to spend money on school supplies as well as use my copy machine at work because her school only had one. Plus, you have kids in Detroit coming to school hungry, cold and impoverished.
I know your response, pick yourself up. Self reliance. Got it.
Please forgive the community of Northville for not taking better care of other peoples children. :-\
You know a large percentage of THEIR tax dollars are already being diverted out of their city.
Sandy Springs successfully incorporated (saved themselves from being annexed by Atlanta), and stopped the inner city from gobbling up all their taxes.
-
Please forgive the community of Northville for not taking better care of other peoples children. :-\
You know a large percentage of THEIR tax dollars are already being diverted out of their city.
Dummy! The point, which you've missed repeatedly is that education should be equal across the board. Poor children should be given the exact same tools to work with that rich children are. We know that would suck, because it might actually help out people of color. We don't want that, because if that happens, we lose our boogey man.
-
I'll concede that our healthcare is the most technologically advanced IF YOU HAVE MONEY FOR IT. But many, many, many don't. And even if you do have the money for it, you have to be willing to overpay for it. That's why you have medical tourism. (Because of the Thailand connection, I have heard a lot about this.) I'm sure you know have read that medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcy in our country. It's shameful. And speaking of shame, 14.9% of our population does not have healthcare insurance. Our per capita spending on healthcare is the highest in the world and yet our health (as measured by any common standard) is mediocre at best.
Links:
Here's Bloomberg's ranking of efficiency of healthcare among countries with advanced economies:
Hmmm. France only ranks #19 here. Oh, but USA is #46 (of 48. We beat Brazil, yee-haw.)
http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/most-efficient-health-care-countries
New England Journal of Medicine points out "...that in 2006, the United States was number 1 in terms of health care spending per capita but ranked 39th for infant mortality, 43rd for adult female mortality, 42nd for adult male mortality, and 36th for life expectancy."
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064
The Commonwealth Fund
The United States ranked last when compared to six other countries -- Britain, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand, the Commonwealth Fund report found.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/23/us-usa-healthcare-last-idUSTRE65M0SU20100623
Should I go on? Or are you finally willing to admit that the USA's healthcare system, relative to that of other countries like France, is poor?
LOL yup just as I thought all your studies base their results off of amount of money spent not the quality of care you receive.
Face it the quality of care available in the US is among the best if not the best in the world. Yes it has issues but if you get sick anywhere in the world and need a top class doctor youre probably coming to the US