On Oct 13, 6:17*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"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.

Really? Middle-class people in the US have several cars, nice houses,
big-screen HD TVs, send their kids to private schools, and own boats.
You were saying?

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:47:47 -0400, wrote:

We use more health care than canadians.

Health care in Canada is rationed by the government. Unless you have
an imminently life threatening condition you can not get to see a
specialist right away or have surgery performed. This applies even
to severe injuries like fractures.

Canadians who can afford it come to the US since they are not allowed
to go outside the system in their own counrty. Sounds great doesn't
it?

"Jack" wrote in message
...
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?

Don't need to explain it, since that's never been claimed. However, cost of
insuring people pales in comparison to the cost of not covering people.
That's an incontrovertible fact.


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.

Still waiting for link to actual facts and not opinion. Which opinion of
mine? Let me know and I'll supply one if possible. If I can't, then it would
be an opinion. E.g., The moon is made of cheese... an opinion, not supported
by the facts.

Bummer about McD's. They'll have to pay more for insuring their workers...
people who get pretty close to minimum wage.

Why don't you attack me personally. That's what you're leading up to with
"You continue to fail."

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Oct 13, 6:17 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"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.

Really? Middle-class people in the US have several cars, nice houses,
big-screen HD TVs, send their kids to private schools, and own boats.
You were saying?

Really, several cars? All of them new I suppose. And, they send them to
private schools. And, they only eat caviar I'm guessing.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:14:22 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

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

Really? Middle-class people in the US have several cars, nice houses,
big-screen HD TVs, send their kids to private schools, and own boats.
You were saying?


Plume doesn't even think I am middle class ($70-80k) and we have all
of that stuff ... paid for ... no debt.

I'm sure you are. Some people do fine and pay off their debt. That's not
typical, unfortunately.

"Jack" wrote in message
...
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!!


?? It's from your article not mine. Who said anyone wants to wipe out
anyone?? Where are you getting this? Try and be civil and not foam at the
mouth when presented with actual facts... one's you've cited!

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:18:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


"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.


"Happier" is a relative thing. Americans go out of their way to be
unhappy, if not, why do we beat ourselves up with studies about how
bad it sucks here?

Yes. It's done by polling I suppose. Or, is there some magic incantation to
reveal it?

I'm pretty happy but I try to be.

Good for you!

I think other cultures work harder to be happy and most of the people
I know do too but I also know a lot of people who just don't know how
to be happy and reject it at all costs. It is easier for them to be
unhappy and blame it on somebody else. Bob seems to be that way

Work harder... umm... like having a whole month off every year vs. two weeks
in the US?

As for medical outcome, it is not the outcome that is the problem, it
is the lifestyles we have that we take to the doctor. Start with out
obesity rate. That alone is enough to make our lifespan lower.
If you are really sick, you are a lot better off in the American
system than you would be anywhere else. That is why you don't see
people going to France or Canada for their heart transplant.
The problem is our system is too good. Mere mortals can't afford it.

Yes, it is the outcome. So obesity is a problem in the US (actually around
the world, but ok). Does that mean we've got a better lifestyle than someone
in Germany, say, who isn't obese?

Ah, so our system is so good, it's bad. Solution... make it worse. I get it.
What nonsense. Did you even read what you wrote?

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:19:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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.

The first thing that all of those other countries have and we are not
very comfortable with is rationing. Unfortunately as the entitlements
start to overwhelm the GDP, we will all have to get used to that.

So, there's no rationing now? Um... hate to tell you, but if you don't have
insurance, that's called rationing. We already have rationing, but it's not
very equitable is it.

As I've said before, SS and Medicare are fixable, and we have time to do
that, even if Chick Little's don't think so!

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:47:47 -0400, wrote:

We use more health care than canadians.

Health care in Canada is rationed by the government. Unless you have
an imminently life threatening condition you can not get to see a
specialist right away or have surgery performed. This applies even
to severe injuries like fractures.

Canadians who can afford it come to the US since they are not allowed
to go outside the system in their own counrty. Sounds great doesn't
it?


You have a cite for the "fractures" comment? I find it hard to believe
anyone would be turned away if they've broken an arm/leg.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:28:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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.

Dollars spent is a horrible way to judge that as long as we are
including all of the cosmetic procedures in the total and all of the
unnecessary tests done to cover the doctor's ass from the lawyers.

There are plenty of studies that are very specific to types of treatments
for specific conditions. So, this cosmetics procedures argument is a bunch
of bs.