"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Oct 13, 4:20 pm, Jim wrote:
Jack wrote:

Look at McDonalds...there's a fact for you.

And what "facts" would those be?
Foxfacts?

Jim - Just the facts m'aam, just the facts.

I don't watch Fox.

http://www.latimes.com/sns-mcdonalds...,7605831.story

You must be thinking of the initial knee-jerk report that they may
discontinue their coverage of employees. Don't believe that came from
Fox.

Jack - Don't like knee-jerk "Must be Fox" comments.

So, McD's is the best example of middle-class tax payers? Suddenly, the
insurance companies, who supposedly have much lower fraud rates, are
concerned about not including those ~minimal~ costs in medical expenses? I'm
betting they'd like their executive pay included also!

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Oct 13, 12:46 pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:25:09 -0400, Jim wrote:
There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life
for the majority of their citizens.

Frankly I don't believe that when you measure quality by the same
indicators that most of us do.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Stan...ed:States.html

"The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in
the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human
Development Index the United States is always in the top ten."

"Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very
high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material
possessions."

While the article also mentions some low points, it points out some
mitigating factors that must be considered, such as the diversity in
the population and culture and the differences in geographic
locations.

In the end, the US is among the top few countries in the world.

You included the "most material possessions," but failed to include this:

"Much of the extra money in the United States is the result of a much
wealthier top section of the population. If the top five percent of the
population is not included the average Canadian would be wealthier than the
average American."

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:42:17 -0400, Secular Humouresque
wrote:

On 10/13/10 1:39 PM, Jack wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:46 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:25:09 -0400, wrote:
There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of
life
for the majority of their citizens.

Frankly I don't believe that when you measure quality by the same
indicators that most of us do.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Stan...ed:States.html

"The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in
the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human
Development Index the United States is always in the top ten."

"Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very
high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material
possessions."

While the article also mentions some low points, it points out some
mitigating factors that must be considered, such as the diversity in
the population and culture and the differences in geographic
locations.

In the end, the US is among the top few countries in the world.



http://www1.internationalliving.com/qofl2010/


I am not really sure how they reach the conclusions they did.
For example they give the US a 92 on freedom vs 100 for the countries
above us on the list. What freedom are they beating us up for?
They only give us a 62 on environment. Where is that? Certainly if you
live in Newark, the environment is bad but it is pretty nice in most
of the country.
Same with "climate". Where are they talking about? In the US we have a
choice.

This really looks like an article written to make the US look bad and
little to explain how they reached their conclusion. They only
criticized our fast pace of life in the text of the article, pointing
out it was to make our life more convenient.


Have you looked at their assumptions:

http://internationalliving.com/2010/...cores-quality/

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:47:57 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:42:17 -0400, Secular Humouresque
wrote:

On 10/13/10 1:39 PM, Jack wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:46 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:25:09 -0400, wrote:
There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of
life
for the majority of their citizens.

Frankly I don't believe that when you measure quality by the same
indicators that most of us do.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Stan...ed:States.html

"The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in
the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human
Development Index the United States is always in the top ten."

"Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very
high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material
possessions."

While the article also mentions some low points, it points out some
mitigating factors that must be considered, such as the diversity in
the population and culture and the differences in geographic
locations.

In the end, the US is among the top few countries in the world.



http://www1.internationalliving.com/qofl2010/


I am not really sure how they reach the conclusions they did.
For example they give the US a 92 on freedom vs 100 for the countries
above us on the list. What freedom are they beating us up for?
They only give us a 62 on environment. Where is that? Certainly if you
live in Newark, the environment is bad but it is pretty nice in most
of the country.
Same with "climate". Where are they talking about? In the US we have a
choice.

This really looks like an article written to make the US look bad and
little to explain how they reached their conclusion. They only
criticized our fast pace of life in the text of the article, pointing
out it was to make our life more convenient.

Look at the info sources.
--
John H

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

Actually, read them.

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Oct 13, 1:50 pm, Secular Humouresque wrote:
On 10/13/10 1:39 PM, Jack wrote:



"The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in
the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human
Development Index the United States is always in the top ten."

"Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very
high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material
possessions."

High GDP and material possessions are not the indicators of quality of
life.

Lack of money and having no material possessions are not indicators of
a good quality of life, at least by the vast majority of people.

I agree... unfortunately, that's the problem in this country... those items
are concentrated in the top percentages.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:12:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life
for the majority of their citizens.

Exactly.

Pardon my skepticism but I'd like you to name a few of these countries
and tell us why their quality of life is higher. I've traveled quite
a bit and have seen very few places where the average citizen comes
even close. Canada is certainly right up there by many measures but
they can keep winter. That's why we have so many of them in SWFL.


There are a host of countries who's citizens live longer, are happier, and
have better medical outcomes. Feel free to google on your own. It's pretty
obvious.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:13:54 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:06:10 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That's the problem with entitlements. Once they're out there, they
become a sacred right. For a variety of reasons US manufacturing has
become uncompetetive in the world market place. Increased
entitlements and the resulting higher tax rates can only make the
problem worse. A service based economy can only take you so far.
Sooner or later you have to make something or have enough foreign
exchange to purchase it elsewhere. Right now we are extending IOUs
to
fund our imports but sooner or later those chips will be called in.


So, which ones are you willing to give up? We have a fairly low tax
rate
already, certainly vs. the rest of the world.

You conveniently miss the point: The discussion is/was about
starting new entitlements not getting rid of the existing ones. In
addition to having lower tax rates than many other countries, we also
have a much higher standard of living. Unfortunately that is likely
to change.

That is the thing people want to ignore.
Sure they have "free" health care in Canada but their tax rate is
about 20% higher than ours.
"Free" starts looking pretty expensive when you run your 1040 against
a Canadian tax return. They are online and simpler than ours so it is
not hard to try for yourself.
When I ran mine on the Ontario web site I would have been paying
$14,000 more in 2009 (I didn't try 2010 but that would have been worse
since 2010 was the lowest tax rate I have paid since 1965 ... when I
was in the service.)

Please tell us who is advocating a Canadian-style system? Nobody here,
except maybe some Canadians who like what they have.


What is the model you want to follow then? UK? Germany? Japan? Taiwan?

I'd like us to find/create our own model that actually works. None of those
cited would work well in our system. It will need to be some sort of hybrid.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:12:14 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That's the problem with entitlements. Once they're out there, they
become a sacred right. For a variety of reasons US manufacturing has
become uncompetetive in the world market place. Increased
entitlements and the resulting higher tax rates can only make the
problem worse. A service based economy can only take you so far.
Sooner or later you have to make something or have enough foreign
exchange to purchase it elsewhere. Right now we are extending IOUs to
fund our imports but sooner or later those chips will be called in.


So, which ones are you willing to give up? We have a fairly low tax rate
already, certainly vs. the rest of the world.

You conveniently miss the point: The discussion is/was about
starting new entitlements not getting rid of the existing ones. In
addition to having lower tax rates than many other countries, we also
have a much higher standard of living. Unfortunately that is likely
to change.


I didn't conveniently miss anything. All the Teabaggers are complaining
about deficits right? So, which programs do they want to cut?

I am not a teabagger, not by a long shot. They are just as rabid as
the loony left. You can't cut any existing programs because it is
politically unacceptable. I already stated that.

Actually, you can cut existing programs, but you have to have two things in
order to do it. 1) intestinal fortitude 2) ability.

If the Republicans get control of the House, it will definitely not happen.
If the Democrats retain control, it's unlikely to happen, but it's possible.

Your claim that we have a much higher standard of living isn't that
accurate. It depends is a more accurate comment. How about infant
mortality?
How about life expectancy?

We have a very diverse population demographic in this country and some
of those segments have very unhealthy lifestyles and make bad
decisions about lots of other things. No governmental program is
going to fix that, and broad based statistics get dragged down as a
result.

No gov't program is going to fix it, but it can help. People make bad
choices all the time, but that doesn't mean we should ignore obvious things
to do, such as giving credit for good behavior.

How about medical outcomes per dollar spent?

I have no idea how to evaluate that.

Well, there are several groups that look at that. They have a great way to
evaluate it. They look at dollars spend vs. outcome. It's pretty
straightforward. Read up.

On Oct 13, 6:10*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...





On Oct 13, 3:09 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

....

On Oct 13, 1:09 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...d/articles/201...

"Meanwhile, 30 major corporations are still able to offer low-cost
health insurance to their employees only because they have received
one-year waivers of the new rules from the Department of Health and
Human Services. What happens when those waivers expire is anybody s
guess. But this much is clear: If the law with its expensive
mandates
remains on the books, millions of Americans are going to lose the
health care plans they have now plans the president repeatedly
promised they could keep."

It's an opinion piece. Cite some facts.

Why? *You didn't cite a single article or "factoid", you just
presented *your* opinion. *My article, if you had actually read it,
was not an opinion piece but offered solid facts of people losing
their insurance because of obamacare. *As they point out if you are
required to insure people and provide expanded benefits that weren't
there before, that extra money will have to come from somewhere, or
the insurance company will simply close up shop. *Then they cite
examples.

Insurance costs are being driven up by obamacare. *Insurance companies
are shutting down, leaving people uninsured because of obamacare. *How
much of that do you like?

I have an opinion, the author had an opinion, and you have an opinion.
I've
cited facts many times that support the proposition that the insurance
reform was flawed but better than what was previously in place.

If your opinion is that the costs will go up, that's fine, but it's not a
fact that has been actually verified. It's an opinion.

It's a fact. *Mine has gone up, and the insurance company verified it
was because of obamacare. *Fact. *Other company's *policies have been
verified to have gone up for the same reason. *Reported here and in
the news. *Still other companies are just pulling out because of the
increased costs. *Reported in my cite and in the news.

So, you believe what the insurance companies are telling you? Because...
they have your best interest in mind?

Maybe you can explain how all this new coverage for millions will come
for free? No one has ever thought that there would be no rate
increase from obamacare. Except you?


Look at McDonalds...there's a fact for you.

Your opinions still have no cites, and are not facts. *If it's the
best you can do, we must agree to disagree.

McDs? Your "cite" was an opinion piece. It's not been in the news (except
Faux News of course).

Sorry, you're wrong on both accounts. My "cite" (your word) used
facts. You still have not provided a *single* cite for your opinion.
And the McD news article did not come from Fox, it appears to have
come from the LATimes. Fox and others may have repeated it, but the
article I linked is not false at all. You continue to fail.

cya

On Oct 13, 6:15*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...





On Oct 13, 12:46 pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:25:09 -0400, Jim wrote:
There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life
for the majority of their citizens.

Frankly I don't believe that when you measure quality by the same
indicators that most of us do.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Stan...he:United:Stat...

"The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in
the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human
Development Index the United States is always in the top ten."

"Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very
high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material
possessions."

While the article also mentions some low points, it points out some
mitigating factors that must be considered, such as the diversity in
the population and culture and the differences in geographic
locations.

In the end, the US is among the top few countries in the world.

You included the "most material possessions," but failed to include this:

"Much of the extra money in the United States is the result of a much
wealthier top section of the population. If the top five percent of the
population is not included the average Canadian would be wealthier than the
average American."

You do realize that 5% of the US is equal to HALF OF THE ENTIRE
POPULATION OF CANADA? That's why statistics like these are so
misleading... they lead many astray if they don't understand the
context of the statistic. So you wipe out the 15 million wealthiest
people in the US, and the average (not median) income of a canadian
rises above the average US resident?

Really? You have to wipe out 15 million? That many? Wow!!