Is China trying to poison us, our kids, and our pets? Are Beijing's communist hardliners waging some clever, clandestine, economic/military war against U.S. citizens? Now, before flatly dismissing the idea, consider that China freely admits a lengthy record of safety woes.
Even the Chinese government admits to "major quality problems". One high ranking Chinese health official recently stated, "These are not isolated cases."
Could this be a calculated Communist strategy? Is China trying to poison our pets and our kids? Maybe the folks suspicious of China are right after all?
Having read the report now that i found a good link, the NRO guy is totaly and horribly wrong.
The graph at the end has no "lines applied", the lines on that graph represent average job creation over the given period.
The paper does state that "On Average over end-2002 to end-2007 job creation would be 140k higher than otherwise"
This means that if the job creates 1.4m new jobs in 2003-2004, and the TOTAL job creation through 2007 MUST be 700k, then between 2005 and 2007 you will lose 700k of those 1.4m new jobs
Even if those were quarterly numbers and not yearly averages as stated the total would be 2.8m new jobs to 2007 and not 5.4m
Is China trying to poison us, our kids, and our pets? Are Beijing's communist hardliners waging some clever, clandestine, economic/military war against U.S. citizens? Now, before flatly dismissing the idea, consider that China freely admits a lengthy record of safety woes.
Even the Chinese government admits to "major quality problems". One high ranking Chinese health official recently stated, "These are not isolated cases."
Could this be a calculated Communist strategy? Is China trying to poison our pets and our kids? Maybe the folks suspicious of China are right after all?
An excerpt from his blog, it seems. You're equating the rhetoric used to link to a WSJ article (which is what his blog did) to economic analysis and serious policy discussions?
Having read the report now that i found a good link, the NRO guy is totaly and horribly wrong.
The graph at the end has no "lines applied", the lines on that graph represent average job creation over the given period.
The paper does state that "On Average over end-2002 to end-2007 job creation would be 140k higher than otherwise"
This means that if the job creates 1.4m new jobs in 2003-2004, and the TOTAL job creation through 2007 MUST be 700k, then between 2005 and 2007 you will lose 700k of those 1.4m new jobs
I think we're reading different reports. There are two lines. Blue and Red. One for the pres plan, one without.
Having read the report now that i found a good link, the NRO guy is totaly and horribly wrong.
The graph at the end has no "lines applied", the lines on that graph represent average job creation over the given period.
The paper does state that "On Average over end-2002 to end-2007 job creation would be 140k higher than otherwise"
This means that if the job creates 1.4m new jobs in 2003-2004, and the TOTAL job creation through 2007 MUST be 700k, then between 2005 and 2007 you will lose 700k of those 1.4m new jobs
I think we're reading different reports. There are two lines. Blue and Red. One for the pres plan, one without.
Yes, and if you READ the report, the parts with WORDS you will see that the AVERAGE JOB GROWTH ABOVE WHAT WOULD BE OTHERWISE IS 140k PER YEAR OVER THE YEARS FROM THE END OF 2002 TO THE END OF 2007.
SUCH, IF THERE ARE 1.4m new jobs after 2004, THEN YOU MUST LOSE JOB CREATION TO THE BASELINE UNTIL YOU HIT A NUMBER OF 700K OVER THE BASELINE. BECAUSE THE AVERAGE OVER THE 5 YEAR PERIOD IS 140k, or 700k/5, or NOT FUCKING 5.4 million new jobs.
Goum. Have some self-control. You'll break the keyboard, and then where will you be? Stuck spray-painting economic diatribes on the side of goods trains, that's where. You don't want that, do you?
Goum. Have some self-control. You'll break the keyboard, and then where will you be? Stuck spray-painting economic diatribes on the side of goods trains, that's where. You don't want that, do you?
Having read the report now that i found a good link, the NRO guy is totaly and horribly wrong.
The graph at the end has no "lines applied", the lines on that graph represent average job creation over the given period.
The paper does state that "On Average over end-2002 to end-2007 job creation would be 140k higher than otherwise"
This means that if the job creates 1.4m new jobs in 2003-2004, and the TOTAL job creation through 2007 MUST be 700k, then between 2005 and 2007 you will lose 700k of those 1.4m new jobs
I think we're reading different reports. There are two lines. Blue and Red. One for the pres plan, one without.
Yes, and if you READ the report, the parts with WORDS you will see that the AVERAGE JOB GROWTH ABOVE WHAT WOULD BE OTHERWISE IS 140k PER YEAR OVER THE YEARS FROM THE END OF 2002 TO THE END OF 2007.
SUCH, IF THERE ARE 1.4m new jobs after 2004, THEN YOU MUST LOSE JOB CREATION TO THE BASELINE UNTIL YOU HIT A NUMBER OF 700K OVER THE BASELINE. BECAUSE THE AVERAGE OVER THE 5 YEAR PERIOD IS 140k, or 700k/5, or NOT FUCKING 5.4 million new jobs.
Yes, I have read the report. Especially the part that states:
Indeed, the absence of supply-side effects means that the model forecasts are most useful over
only the first few years of the projection period, since after perhaps two years the increased
efficiency effects of lower tax rates would be expected to provide additional impetus to growth
that is not captured by the model framework.
As I saw that, the model framework does not capture information past the first two years.
No, its just a statement that like any forecast its more usefull the closer the forecasted date is to when the forecast was forecast. Such, the 3-5 year forecast is less usefull than the 2 year forecast, because more shit happens in two years than in less than two years and we dont know what it will do under the different models.
But your NRO guy deems it nessesary to declare without research that 500k per year is a reasonable assumption?
Goumindong on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
edited July 2007
hay nice long thread. Has anyone brought up the nearly perfect dutch healthcare system?
Saw this last night, I was really blown away by it. The crowd in the almost full theatre was 90% age 50 and up by the looks of things. Hopefully those people go out and vote for some kind of change when they get the chance.
All the talk of 'Americans being afraid of our government' makes me want to go out and protest something, but thats another topic...
No, its just a statement that like any forecast its more usefull the closer the forecasted date is to when the forecast was forecast. Such, the 3-5 year forecast is less usefull than the 2 year forecast, because more shit happens in two years than in less than two years and we dont know what it will do under the different models.
But your NRO guy deems it nessesary to declare without research that 500k per year is a reasonable assumption?
Assuming that 700,000 was the average growth for the first two years with the taxes frontloaded, and the report specifically mentions that all supply-side effects are ignored, "reasonable" becomes pretty subjective. A big supply-sider might argue 500,000 is the low point, since the effects compound. Others might say to stick with the most conservative estimates.
In either case, the point Luskin made was that Krugman was off by a factor of ten before these assumptions were even brought to bare in the argument. You could remove his estimates (and even discount them as complete fabrications) and the bottom line would still be that Krugman's assertions were patently false.
Now that Sicko is getting greater exposure, I'm seeing some polarization by people who have seen it. Working in Health Care, the topic is really big around my office, and I've seen some pretty intense arguments over the movie. One RN started yelling at her union rep when he opined on the movie. She immediately launched into an anti-Moore dialog that drew a lot of attention.
Some of my employees are upset because it villianized their company, which provides their paychecks, and they are afraid that they may lose their job because some of the more embarrassing examples of issues (which all companies have to some degree or another) are made to look like the norm.
No, its just a statement that like any forecast its more usefull the closer the forecasted date is to when the forecast was forecast. Such, the 3-5 year forecast is less usefull than the 2 year forecast, because more shit happens in two years than in less than two years and we dont know what it will do under the different models.
But your NRO guy deems it nessesary to declare without research that 500k per year is a reasonable assumption?
Assuming that 700,000 was the average growth for the first two years with the taxes frontloaded, and the report specifically mentions that all supply-side effects are ignored, "reasonable" becomes pretty subjective. A big supply-sider might argue 500,000 is the low point, since the effects compound. Others might say to stick with the most conservative estimates.
In either case, the point Luskin made was that Krugman was off by a factor of ten before these assumptions were even brought to bare in the argument. You could remove his estimates (and even discount them as complete fabrications) and the bottom line would still be that Krugman's assertions were patently false.
Despite the report saying "supply side effects are not accounted for" its lieing. See, you cannot do a study like this and not account for supply side or demand side effects. And you can only account for one. The ENTIRE point of the study is the effect the reduction on taxes has on the market. Taxes never make any supply or demand shifts. Never. Never Ever. Never Ever Ever. Saying "It doesnt take into account supply side gains" is like saying "It doesnt take into account shit we dont know about". The estimated gains from GDP growth ARE the estimated gains from the effects of the tax reduction. The extra GDP growth comes only at the reduction of dead weight loss since taxes cannot shift supply or demand, which means that any estimations of new jobs from increased GDP are estimations based on "increased efficiency" of the maket.
The 140k estimate over 5 years, actualy puts Krugmans assertions an overestimate by a factor of two, and not an underestimate by a factor of 10. Shit, How the fuck did you get a factor of ten, when Liee McLierson at the NRO suggested a number of 5.4 million. Surely he would be suggesting 14 million if Krugman was off by a factor of 10. Since 1.4 times 10 is 14, and 5.4/1.4 is 3.857.
700k was the estimated average growth over growth that would occur without the plan over a five year period begining at the end of 2002 and going to the end of 2007. Why is this so fucking hard to understand?
No, its just a statement that like any forecast its more usefull the closer the forecasted date is to when the forecast was forecast. Such, the 3-5 year forecast is less usefull than the 2 year forecast, because more shit happens in two years than in less than two years and we dont know what it will do under the different models.
But your NRO guy deems it nessesary to declare without research that 500k per year is a reasonable assumption?
Assuming that 700,000 was the average growth for the first two years with the taxes frontloaded, and the report specifically mentions that all supply-side effects are ignored, "reasonable" becomes pretty subjective. A big supply-sider might argue 500,000 is the low point, since the effects compound. Others might say to stick with the most conservative estimates.
In either case, the point Luskin made was that Krugman was off by a factor of ten before these assumptions were even brought to bare in the argument. You could remove his estimates (and even discount them as complete fabrications) and the bottom line would still be that Krugman's assertions were patently false.
This is getting pretty off-topic, so if I can just reprise the origins of this tangent... I linked an article by Krugman and another person, you said you wouldn't read it because everything that Krugman says is tainted by his propensity to lie, I said, show me, you showed me that article and I showed you a counter-argument.
While it doesn't seem like we're making a lot of progress in this tangent, I would have thought we'd gone far enough to see that the statement that Krugman is deliberately falsifying data doesn't hold water, or at least, if one assumes good will, although I accept this may be asking too much. Anyway. Krugman's original article made a comparison between what he saw as the total cost of Bush's tax cuts and the total number of new jobs that would be created. The response was predicated on the assumption that many more jobs would be created than Krugman believed would be. I suspect this disagreement is basically ideological in nature and is very unlikely to be resolved in this thread.
Anyway, I respect your right to refuse to read anything by Krugman, although to me it seems pretty silly; even if everything he says is a pack of distortions and lies, don't you want to know specifically what kind of distortions and lies the "other side" engage in? "Know thine enemy" and all that? :P
Anyway, I respect your right to refuse to read anything by Krugman, although to me it seems pretty silly; even if everything he says is a pack of distortions and lies, don't you want to know specifically what kind of distortions and lies the "other side" engage in? "Know thine enemy" and all that? :P
I can respect that. After all, I've watched Sicko even though I distrust Moore. I have slightly different reasons for treating them different, but that's not really the point. Let us get back to the topic at hand.
It's going to be interesting to hear how many people repeat the "Moore claimed that Cuba only pays $25 per person!" claim (Moore actually claims $251.). It'll be an interesting litmus test for who actually saw the saw the movie, and who's simply repeating criticisms from rightwing hate sites.
So has anyone discussed the America standard of clinging to life too long?
My co-worker who handles healthcare policy tells me that all this discussion about single-payer or private/public doctors is all well and good, but is not the most important topic we need to discuss. Rather, we need to address how the money is spent, and the majority of money spent in our healthcare system is in the last 6 months of a person's life, with expensive chemo treatments and other treatments for terminal or functionally terminal patients, whereas people in most other countries do not do this.
And my first impression is that I agree with her, that America is not ready to discuss how best to just let our elderly and terminal patients die (with dignity?).
So has anyone discussed the America standard of clinging to life too long?
My co-worker who handles healthcare policy tells me that all this discussion about single-payer or private/public doctors is all well and good, but is not the most important topic we need to discuss. Rather, we need to address how the money is spent, and the majority of money spent in our healthcare system is in the last 6 months of a person's life, with expensive chemo treatments and other treatments for terminal or functionally terminal patients, whereas people in most other countries do not do this.
And my first impression is that I agree with her, that America is not ready to discuss how best to just let our elderly and terminal patients die (with dignity?).
Perhaps instead of dying, the treatments are successful?
So has anyone discussed the America standard of clinging to life too long?
My co-worker who handles healthcare policy tells me that all this discussion about single-payer or private/public doctors is all well and good, but is not the most important topic we need to discuss. Rather, we need to address how the money is spent, and the majority of money spent in our healthcare system is in the last 6 months of a person's life, with expensive chemo treatments and other treatments for terminal or functionally terminal patients, whereas people in most other countries do not do this.
And my first impression is that I agree with her, that America is not ready to discuss how best to just let our elderly and terminal patients die (with dignity?).
Perhaps instead of dying, the treatments are successful?
Terminal means the patient will die.
And yeah, end of life care is so expensive it is almost unreal. I can't wait for the baby boomers to hit that nice stage. No UHC could take care of it, and our system will have issues of course as well.
It's possible that because of the baby boomers Americans will be forced to look at the issue of how we deal with end of life care over the next 30 years, even if the country isn't ready. (I don't think it will ever be ready really as it flies in the face of American culture)
It would of course be better to discuss it now. Some legislators already are. Oregon did put laws in place allowing for physician assisted suicide for terminal patients under certain conditions. I can't remember if they were challenged though.
Perhaps instead of dying, the treatments are successful?
Well sometimes they are, but the statistics showing that in most cases the money is being spent on people who die months later, clearly it doesn't work most of the time.
It's possible that because of the baby boomers Americans will be forced to look at the issue of how we deal with end of life care over the next 30 years, even if the country isn't ready. (I don't think it will ever be ready really as it flies in the face of American culture)
It would of course be better to discuss it now. Some legislators already are. Oregon did put laws in place allowing for physician assisted suicide for terminal patients under certain conditions. I can't remember if they were challenged though.
This would help, but I think the greatest costs here are life support necessarily, but rather the expensive treatments. People who want to die right now, without those laws, can still not accept any treatments, even if they can't help but be plugged in.
I've never been a Moore fan either because of how shifty his practices are in making a documentary, and thus didn't give this new one much thought. If it's agreeable to somebody who feels the same way about Moore, maybe I'll give it a chance.
i know what you mean, i found his first two over the top in the biased regard, which made me hesitant to see sicko, finally my friend convinced me and i actually really enjoyed it. i still think he is a pretentious, overly biased filmmaker but the movie actually is very interesting (not being from the states) it really opens your eyes to how poor the american healthcare system is (dont take that as an insult) but its a pretty good film, definatly check it out even if it is annoying to see MM through the whole thing, i survived it and enjoyed it for not ebing a fan
I've never been a Moore fan either because of how shifty his practices are in making a documentary, and thus didn't give this new one much thought. If it's agreeable to somebody who feels the same way about Moore, maybe I'll give it a chance.
i know what you mean, i found his first two over the top in the biased regard, which made me hesitant to see sicko, finally my friend convinced me and i actually really enjoyed it. i still think he is a pretentious, overly biased filmmaker but the movie actually is very interesting (not being from the states) it really opens your eyes to how poor the american healthcare system is (dont take that as an insult) but its a pretty good film, definatly check it out even if it is annoying to see MM through the whole thing, i survived it and enjoyed it for not ebing a fan
FYI, Sicko is his 4th movie. His first was Roger & Me, a movie that blue collar Republicans tend to love.
I think that's Moore's biggest problem - even when he's got a legitimate point, people don't want to listen because they just find him too annoying.
I'm the same way.
Roger & Me was fun watching him as a relatively unknown filmmaker try to score an interview with the CEO of GM. Then Bowling for Columbine was hit-and-miss: when he was dealing with Columbine the movie was great and his interviews with Matt Stone and Marilyn Manson were spot-on, but when he started to deal with gun control it kind of went downhill, and his "interview" with Charlton Heston was just sad and totally low-class. I hated Fahrenheit 9/11 with a passion; it was a terrible, terrible documentary that did more damage to the left-wing than good IMO.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
The bit I remember most from Farenheit 9/11 was where Moore listed American allies for the invasion of Iraq and deliberately only named those likely to elicit mirth as regards their military capabilities and status in world affairs - ie, Iceland etc. And didn't mention Spain, Italy or the UK. Pretty much lost all respect right there.
"Michael Moore is lying to you!!! It's not free, it's paid for in taxes!!!"
Well, no shit, sherlock. Jesus christ, the people who try to refute UHC by pointing out that it's paid for in taxes as though it's brand new information are like the people who try to refute global warming by bringing up sunspots, as though no climatologists has ever considered it before.
The bit I remember most from Farenheit 9/11 was where Moore listed American allies for the invasion of Iraq and deliberately only named those likely to elicit mirth as regards their military capabilities and status in world affairs - ie, Iceland etc. And didn't mention Spain, Italy or the UK. Pretty much lost all respect right there.
I thought that was reasonable - as long as you already knew about Spain, Italy or the UK.
He was trying to illustrate that a lot of the countries in this grand coallition weren't really going to do jack shit. However, a cursory mention of the countries with actual armies would have allowed him to say "look at the proportion of countries in this coallition that will actually be sending useful numbers of troops" and still point out the stupidity of claiming that the freshly invaded Afghans were supporting the invasion of Iraq.
Lots of people here speculating on the differentiation in salaries between the U.K and the U.S. I'm aware this post is old but it's certainly something that still interests me greatly, take two advanced countries and compare the pros and cons...
U.S
- cheaper travel costs
- good infrastructure
- freedom
- reasonable prices
- good jobs available
U.K
- free healthcare
- good jobs available
- freedom of speech
- Advert free news
Now take salary and exchange rates of currencies into account and the comparison starts to get interesting. Here in the U.K in 2017 the average grad salary is around £18,000 plus a 20% tax rate on top of that. According to this income after tax calculator if I were to graduate with an honours degree, enter work and earn the average grad salary I'd have a take-home salary of just £1294 every month: http://income-tax.co.uk/calculator/18000
Now the average grad salary in the U.S stands at $49,000. Need I explain more?
How is this so that in two equally advanced countries the salary differentiation for a grad is so significant?? Can somebody explain this to me??? I'm confused!
"Average grad salary" is totally meaningless without knowing exactly which diplomas you're comparing.
Because I suspect you're comparing two wildly different education levels there. Especially since your comparison list between the countries makes no sense.
Posts
For your viewing pleasure, a recent National Review Online passage:
The graph at the end has no "lines applied", the lines on that graph represent average job creation over the given period.
The paper does state that "On Average over end-2002 to end-2007 job creation would be 140k higher than otherwise"
This means that if the job creates 1.4m new jobs in 2003-2004, and the TOTAL job creation through 2007 MUST be 700k, then between 2005 and 2007 you will lose 700k of those 1.4m new jobs
Even if those were quarterly numbers and not yearly averages as stated the total would be 2.8m new jobs to 2007 and not 5.4m
An excerpt from his blog, it seems. You're equating the rhetoric used to link to a WSJ article (which is what his blog did) to economic analysis and serious policy discussions?
Nope. Not feeling embarrassed.
I think we're reading different reports. There are two lines. Blue and Red. One for the pres plan, one without.
Well you clearly don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Thats pretty embarrassing.
Yes, and if you READ the report, the parts with WORDS you will see that the AVERAGE JOB GROWTH ABOVE WHAT WOULD BE OTHERWISE IS 140k PER YEAR OVER THE YEARS FROM THE END OF 2002 TO THE END OF 2007.
SUCH, IF THERE ARE 1.4m new jobs after 2004, THEN YOU MUST LOSE JOB CREATION TO THE BASELINE UNTIL YOU HIT A NUMBER OF 700K OVER THE BASELINE. BECAUSE THE AVERAGE OVER THE 5 YEAR PERIOD IS 140k, or 700k/5, or NOT FUCKING 5.4 million new jobs.
I think the stupid is getting to him.
That's a nice comment. I think I'll frame it.
Yes, I have read the report. Especially the part that states:
As I saw that, the model framework does not capture information past the first two years.
But your NRO guy deems it nessesary to declare without research that 500k per year is a reasonable assumption?
I host a podcast about movies.
No they haven't.
Fill us in. How does it work?
Dutch PENSIONS are very good. Their healthcare is euro-typical.
I host a podcast about movies.
Ah. I'll have to look their pension system up.
All the talk of 'Americans being afraid of our government' makes me want to go out and protest something, but thats another topic...
Assuming that 700,000 was the average growth for the first two years with the taxes frontloaded, and the report specifically mentions that all supply-side effects are ignored, "reasonable" becomes pretty subjective. A big supply-sider might argue 500,000 is the low point, since the effects compound. Others might say to stick with the most conservative estimates.
In either case, the point Luskin made was that Krugman was off by a factor of ten before these assumptions were even brought to bare in the argument. You could remove his estimates (and even discount them as complete fabrications) and the bottom line would still be that Krugman's assertions were patently false.
Some of my employees are upset because it villianized their company, which provides their paychecks, and they are afraid that they may lose their job because some of the more embarrassing examples of issues (which all companies have to some degree or another) are made to look like the norm.
Despite the report saying "supply side effects are not accounted for" its lieing. See, you cannot do a study like this and not account for supply side or demand side effects. And you can only account for one. The ENTIRE point of the study is the effect the reduction on taxes has on the market. Taxes never make any supply or demand shifts. Never. Never Ever. Never Ever Ever. Saying "It doesnt take into account supply side gains" is like saying "It doesnt take into account shit we dont know about". The estimated gains from GDP growth ARE the estimated gains from the effects of the tax reduction. The extra GDP growth comes only at the reduction of dead weight loss since taxes cannot shift supply or demand, which means that any estimations of new jobs from increased GDP are estimations based on "increased efficiency" of the maket.
The 140k estimate over 5 years, actualy puts Krugmans assertions an overestimate by a factor of two, and not an underestimate by a factor of 10. Shit, How the fuck did you get a factor of ten, when Liee McLierson at the NRO suggested a number of 5.4 million. Surely he would be suggesting 14 million if Krugman was off by a factor of 10. Since 1.4 times 10 is 14, and 5.4/1.4 is 3.857.
700k was the estimated average growth over growth that would occur without the plan over a five year period begining at the end of 2002 and going to the end of 2007. Why is this so fucking hard to understand?
This is getting pretty off-topic, so if I can just reprise the origins of this tangent... I linked an article by Krugman and another person, you said you wouldn't read it because everything that Krugman says is tainted by his propensity to lie, I said, show me, you showed me that article and I showed you a counter-argument.
While it doesn't seem like we're making a lot of progress in this tangent, I would have thought we'd gone far enough to see that the statement that Krugman is deliberately falsifying data doesn't hold water, or at least, if one assumes good will, although I accept this may be asking too much. Anyway. Krugman's original article made a comparison between what he saw as the total cost of Bush's tax cuts and the total number of new jobs that would be created. The response was predicated on the assumption that many more jobs would be created than Krugman believed would be. I suspect this disagreement is basically ideological in nature and is very unlikely to be resolved in this thread.
Anyway, I respect your right to refuse to read anything by Krugman, although to me it seems pretty silly; even if everything he says is a pack of distortions and lies, don't you want to know specifically what kind of distortions and lies the "other side" engage in? "Know thine enemy" and all that? :P
I can respect that. After all, I've watched Sicko even though I distrust Moore. I have slightly different reasons for treating them different, but that's not really the point. Let us get back to the topic at hand.
Holy shit, pwn3d!
It's going to be interesting to hear how many people repeat the "Moore claimed that Cuba only pays $25 per person!" claim (Moore actually claims $251.). It'll be an interesting litmus test for who actually saw the saw the movie, and who's simply repeating criticisms from rightwing hate sites.
My co-worker who handles healthcare policy tells me that all this discussion about single-payer or private/public doctors is all well and good, but is not the most important topic we need to discuss. Rather, we need to address how the money is spent, and the majority of money spent in our healthcare system is in the last 6 months of a person's life, with expensive chemo treatments and other treatments for terminal or functionally terminal patients, whereas people in most other countries do not do this.
And my first impression is that I agree with her, that America is not ready to discuss how best to just let our elderly and terminal patients die (with dignity?).
Perhaps instead of dying, the treatments are successful?
Terminal means the patient will die.
And yeah, end of life care is so expensive it is almost unreal. I can't wait for the baby boomers to hit that nice stage. No UHC could take care of it, and our system will have issues of course as well.
It would of course be better to discuss it now. Some legislators already are. Oregon did put laws in place allowing for physician assisted suicide for terminal patients under certain conditions. I can't remember if they were challenged though.
Well sometimes they are, but the statistics showing that in most cases the money is being spent on people who die months later, clearly it doesn't work most of the time.
This would help, but I think the greatest costs here are life support necessarily, but rather the expensive treatments. People who want to die right now, without those laws, can still not accept any treatments, even if they can't help but be plugged in.
i know what you mean, i found his first two over the top in the biased regard, which made me hesitant to see sicko, finally my friend convinced me and i actually really enjoyed it. i still think he is a pretentious, overly biased filmmaker but the movie actually is very interesting (not being from the states) it really opens your eyes to how poor the american healthcare system is (dont take that as an insult) but its a pretty good film, definatly check it out even if it is annoying to see MM through the whole thing, i survived it and enjoyed it for not ebing a fan
FYI, Sicko is his 4th movie. His first was Roger & Me, a movie that blue collar Republicans tend to love.
I'm the same way.
Roger & Me was fun watching him as a relatively unknown filmmaker try to score an interview with the CEO of GM. Then Bowling for Columbine was hit-and-miss: when he was dealing with Columbine the movie was great and his interviews with Matt Stone and Marilyn Manson were spot-on, but when he started to deal with gun control it kind of went downhill, and his "interview" with Charlton Heston was just sad and totally low-class. I hated Fahrenheit 9/11 with a passion; it was a terrible, terrible documentary that did more damage to the left-wing than good IMO.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
"Michael Moore is lying to you!!! It's not free, it's paid for in taxes!!!"
Well, no shit, sherlock. Jesus christ, the people who try to refute UHC by pointing out that it's paid for in taxes as though it's brand new information are like the people who try to refute global warming by bringing up sunspots, as though no climatologists has ever considered it before.
I thought that was reasonable - as long as you already knew about Spain, Italy or the UK.
He was trying to illustrate that a lot of the countries in this grand coallition weren't really going to do jack shit. However, a cursory mention of the countries with actual armies would have allowed him to say "look at the proportion of countries in this coallition that will actually be sending useful numbers of troops" and still point out the stupidity of claiming that the freshly invaded Afghans were supporting the invasion of Iraq.
U.S
- cheaper travel costs
- good infrastructure
- freedom
- reasonable prices
- good jobs available
U.K
- free healthcare
- good jobs available
- freedom of speech
- Advert free news
Now take salary and exchange rates of currencies into account and the comparison starts to get interesting. Here in the U.K in 2017 the average grad salary is around £18,000 plus a 20% tax rate on top of that. According to this income after tax calculator if I were to graduate with an honours degree, enter work and earn the average grad salary I'd have a take-home salary of just £1294 every month: http://income-tax.co.uk/calculator/18000
Now the average grad salary in the U.S stands at $49,000. Need I explain more?
How is this so that in two equally advanced countries the salary differentiation for a grad is so significant?? Can somebody explain this to me??? I'm confused!
Because I suspect you're comparing two wildly different education levels there. Especially since your comparison list between the countries makes no sense.