[spunkles182]

so i found this interesting. In the film hes said america ranks 37 in health care. so i went to find the data (i still have no idea what this number means). but anyways cuba is ranked 39th. so by his own statistics, America has better health care than cuba...

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

*i know the number is meaningless but its a contridiction in his own premise.

[anabolicrhino]

Originally Posted by spunkles182

so i found this interesting. In the film hes said america ranks 37 in health care. so i went to find the data (i still have no idea what this number means). but anyways cuba is ranked 39th. so by his own statistics, America has better health care than cuba...

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

*i know the number is meaningless but its a contridiction in his own premise.

Here is the WHO guide for the statistics they used -

WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

I think those are reliable parameters for judging a countries health care systems performance

Yes, the USA ranks 2 places ahead of Cuba.

If you consider that, there are 36 countries ahead of the USA, including Columbia, Morocco and the Dominican Republicand that Cuba's health care system is FREE !!!

It drives home the actual point of the movie which is not how great the Cuban health care system is compared to the USA, but how bad the USA health care system is compared to the rest of the world !!!

[spunkles182]

Originally Posted by anabolicrhino

Here is the WHO guide for the statistics they used -

WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

show me the data. if you can show me where and how they got the numbers for those indicators then ill give some validity to it. and i quote mark twain "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

An example, the statisitcs say that the US has a higher infant mortality rate than alot of countries. Yet many foreigners bring their very sick children here.why is that? is it that their country would certainly give up on because the cost is too high and the probablitly of them surviving is too low. In the United States, about two-thirds of infant deaths occur in the first month after birth and are due mostly to health problems of the infant or the pregnancy, such as preterm delivery or birth defects, I would assume cuba considers these "stillborn" and dont count towards this calculation. thus, this is infant mortality rate is higher.

[spunkles182]

Originally Posted by anabolicrhino

If you consider that, there are 36 countries ahead of the USA, including Columbia, Morocco and the Dominican Republicand that Cuba's health care system is FREE !!!

it is absolutely not free. the government has to pay for it.

[CDB]

Originally Posted by anabolicrhino

Here is the WHO guide for the statistics they used -

WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health;

Which can be affected by a trillion other factors. For example available and prevelant diet.

health inequalities (or disparities) within the population;

That's like ranking the health of our auto industry by measuring the difference between the best and worst cars on the road. It assumes there should be no disparity which begs the question of whether or not equal access to health care is indeed deserved, a right, necessary, etc.

overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts);

Which is more than a little subjective. The outcomes are what should be measured.

distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system);

Which once more begs the question.

and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).[/b]

Which once more begs the question. They may as well have said "We are doing this study under the assumption that a socialized medical care system is better than a private one and ignoring specific metrics which could prove otherwise..."

[Rufio]

Originally Posted by CDB

If the majority of the people aren't responsible or caring enough to function without leaders, they likely aren't responsible or caring enough to trust to elect leaders either. The ethos of democracy, even in a democratic republic like the US, makes certain contradictions arise when you start talking about the incompetence or inadequecies of the people in managing themselves. Because, if they can't manage their own lives, they certainly can't be trusted to manage the lives of others even if it amounts to choosing leaders.

1. People really shouldn't trust leaders

2. The only leaders people have a chance to elect are those who pass the litmus test of the corporate lenders and investors who are associated with both parties in the first place

3. The idea that if there's a massive potential famine or disaster, people will organize themselves with no assistance is a huge risk. Again, the Irish Potato Famine is a good example of this.

Originally Posted by CDB

As for the rights violation, you're ignoring the fact that in order to enact and enforce the law the government has to take resources from people. And you're also ignoring the fact that punishment consists of the victim and the rest of society by and large paying for room and board for the assaulter or murderer during their stretch. The punishment is meant to instill respect for the authority of the law making body, protection of the rights of the injured is a secondary concern if at all, restitution of what was taken and/or reparations for what was done are often overlooked unless it is easy and obvious to do, such as returning stolen property.

Yes, the government does have to take resources from people. That is my point. Would you be more trusting of citizens' arrest and vigilantism?

Originally Posted by CDB

This is an expression of economic ignorance so vast it astounds. Please do tell, how much is any one person supposed to make? This is BS Ricardian rent theory which has been thoroughly debunked for well over a century.

WTF are you talking about? I didn't say anything about what someone is "supposed" to make. The actions of the government have a very clear effect on the economy. Most superpowers throughout history greatly enhanced their economies by stealing resources from conquered countries.

Originally Posted by CDB

Again, economic ignorance that is astounding. The government is not the economy. The government at most sets up rules by which the economy must abide. It does not create opportunity, it does not create wealth, it does not serve any capitalist function, it does not serve any entrepreneurial function. The economy, or the market, is the interweaving system that is created by each and every voluntary exchange that takes place between people. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yeah, the government isn't remotely involved in creating currency, military and diplomatic projects that grant access to raw materials, business loans, or any of the things that allow various companies to exist. You could make just as much money in a place with no government horded resources and government-sponsored loans, huh?

Originally Posted by CDB

They did not help you get the money because the government can only consume. Money is not wealth, it is a commodity used for exchange. Increased productivity leads to wealth, which is an increase in the available goods and services and a concurrent increase in buying power of whatever the money commodity happens to be. The government can not contribute to this process by definition, it can only distort it and/or live off a portion of the surplus after it has been created. Saying the government is the economy or an integral part of it completely turns the known structure of production on its head. The government can only exist on what has already been produced through productive activity. It can only reduce wealth by its very nature.

You're ignoring the point. A lot of the raw materials that people need to start businesses are provided by government. If there was no government in the US, a lot of current business couldn't have gotten government loans when they were starting out, the resources taken from war would be gone, and then there's the matter of things like roads planned by the government. A lot of the opportunities in the US come from taking land and resources through military actions or other government-sponsored activites.

Originally Posted by CDB

Actually they can't, and there's barely a modern economist left who doesn't know and acknowledge that wages are determined by marginal productivity. If someone tries to pay their workers less than MP they create profit conditions for other people to hire them and aquire their revenue stream. If they pay them more than MP then their profits and return margins get squeezed. If employers could pay their workers whatever they wanted wages would never go up, and indeed never would have gone up, and everyone except land owners would be living at or below subsitence levels. Perhaps you could look into economics post marginalist revolution. You know, after Menger and others figured this stuff out over a cenutry ago?

What the hell does that have to do with what I said? I'm talking about for instance the tiny cost of materials to make shoes compared to how much they can be sold for, or how much a hard-working diamond miner may be paid compared to how much the diamond sells for. I'm not comparing the wages between different employers or employees.

Originally Posted by CDB

No, it is exactly the same. Theft is theft, period. There is no such thing as a little bit of robbery, or a smidgen or assault, or a sliver of rape.

So getting slapped in the face is the same thing as having your head chopped off? Okay ...

Originally Posted by CDB

And many writers wrote wonderful travelogues about the Soviet Union when they went there. How beautiful it was, how industrious the people were, the buildings, the sites, etc.

How'd things work out there in the end? Didn't millions still die of starvation despite the huge 'success' of socialism? How many Cubans are in prison for political opinions? How many are dead for the same?

And what you guys don't seem to get is those things are part and parcel with socialism, because they are part and parcel with government control, because government power is always abused in the end. No matter what.

Socialism is flawed, but you're going a bit far here. The US was in many cases close to the corruption of the Soviet Union back then, at least on an international scale. You're also confusing socialists or Marxists with Leninists. Lenin's theories pretty much transformed Marx's ideas into an excuse for dictatorship.

Currently the #1 country for standard of living as I recall is Norway, a country that does not have a wealth gap between the rich and the poor as great as most Western countries. Canada is also ranked ahead of us.

[spunkles182]

Originally Posted by Rufio

Currently the #1 country for standard of living as I recall is Norway, a country that does not have a wealth gap between the rich and the poor as great as most Western countries. Canada is also ranked ahead of us.

define standard of living?

[spunkles182]

Originally Posted by CDB

They did not help you get the money because the government can only consume. Money is not wealth, it is a commodity used for exchange. Increased productivity leads to wealth, which is an increase in the available goods and services and a concurrent increase in buying power of whatever the money commodity happens to be. The government can not contribute to this process by definition, it can only distort it and/or live off a portion of the surplus after it has been created. Saying the government is the economy or an integral part of it completely turns the known structure of production on its head. The government can only exist on what has already been produced through productive activity. It can only reduce wealth by its very nature.

I wish more people understood this

[anabolicrhino]

Originally Posted by spunkles182

show me the data. if you can show me where and how they got the numbers for those indicators then ill give some validity to it. and i quote mark twain "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

An example, the statisitcs say that the US has a higher infant mortality rate than alot of countries. Yet many foreigners bring their very sick children here.why is that? is it that their country would certainly give up on because the cost is too high and the probablitly of them surviving is too low. In the United States, about two-thirds of infant deaths occur in the first month after birth and are due mostly to health problems of the infant or the pregnancy, such as preterm delivery or birth defects, I would assume cuba considers these "stillborn" and dont count towards this calculation. thus, this is infant mortality rate is higher.

Gosh dude, I don't know where "they" got the statistic from...

But, I got the same statistics from the article that you posted to start this thread !!!...did you read it ???

I was not offering the statistics to make the WHO ranking any more valid. I was showing how these statistics if accepted as accurate would prove MIchael Moores objective in the movie "Sicko" and not disprove his message !

So, these statistics are not the best choice to prove your point!

[anabolicrhino]

Originally Posted by spunkles182

it is absolutely not free. the government has to pay for it.

Who do they pay ?

[anabolicrhino]

Originally Posted by CDB
They did not help you get the money because the government can only consume. Money is not wealth, it is a commodity used for exchange. Increased productivity leads to wealth, which is an increase in the available goods and services and a concurrent increase in buying power of whatever the money commodity happens to be. The government can not contribute to this process by definition, it can only distort it and/or live off a portion of the surplus after it has been created. Saying the government is the economy or an integral part of it completely turns the known structure of production on its head. The government can only exist on what has already been produced through productive activity. It can only reduce wealth by its very nature.

The United States government is still by the people for the people and of the people ! Government is a concept of control that is accepted by general consensus of the governed.

Money is only validated by its acceptance as a medium for exchange. It is the acceptance by the people of a certain "money' as a commodity which by the definition of commodity, means it can be valued and exchanged for equity.

This acceptance of what is commodity or capital by the people is what defines wealth in a capitalistic system!

You cannot observe government as separate from the people it is not a sentient being that makes choices for its own survival.

The wealth that the government consumes is created by the people and is given to the government of the people in order to create equal benefits for the people!

..at least that is how it is supposed to work!

This model can be compromised by the corruption of the participants!

[spunkles182]

Originally Posted by anabolicrhino

Gosh dude, I don't know where "they" got the statistic from...

But, I got the same statistics from the article that you posted to start this thread !!!...did you read it ???

I was not offering the statistics to make the WHO ranking any more valid. I was showing how these statistics if accepted as accurate would prove MIchael Moores objective in the movie "Sicko" and not disprove his message !

So, these statistics are not the best choice to prove your point!

you didnt offer any statisitcs. The WHO article didnt offer any statisitics. its just a bunch of arbitrary numbers if there is no data to support their rankings.

[spunkles182]

Originally Posted by anabolicrhino

The United States government is still by the people for the people and of the people ! Government is a concept of control that is accepted by general consensus of the governed.

Money is only validated by its acceptance as a medium for exchange. It is the acceptance by the people of a certain "money' as a commodity which by the definition of commodity, means it can be valued and exchanged for equity.

This acceptance of what is commodity or capital by the people is what defines wealth in a capitalistic system!

You cannot observe government as separate from the people it is not a sentient being that makes choices for its own survival.

The wealth that the government consumes is created by the people and is given to the government of the people in order to create equal benefits for the people!

..at least that is how it is supposed to work!

This model can be compromised by the corruption of the participants!

[CDB]

Originally Posted by anabolicrhino

The United States government is still by the people for the people and of the people ! Government is a concept of control that is accepted by general consensus of the governed.

Money is only validated by its acceptance as a medium for exchange. It is the acceptance by the people of a certain "money' as a commodity which by the definition of commodity, means it can be valued and exchanged for equity.

This acceptance of what is commodity or capital by the people is what defines wealth in a capitalistic system!

Incorrect. Increases in real goods and services are what constitute wealth. If money were wealth all the government would need to do is print up a few trillion dollars and we'd all be rich. It doesn't work that way.

You cannot observe government as separate from the people it is not a sentient being that makes choices for its own survival.

The wealth that the government consumes is created by the people and is given to the government of the people in order to create equal benefits for the people!

That's about as naive a view of government as I've ever read, even with the proviso of 'supposed'.

..at least that is how it is supposed to work!

This model can be compromised by the corruption of the participants!

No, the model is corrupt and unsustainable no matter who participates. That's what you don't seem to get. The Soviets were always putting people on trial on the assumption that the system worked and it was just the people here and there who screwed it up. That's simply not the case.