Americans are stoopid

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,027
3
76
Worst racism I've ever seen? New Orleans and Northern Europe. Most tolerant places I've been? California, London, Mumbai, and Vancouver.

Yep I can definitely see that about Northern Europe, I'm from
South England, so the majority of my experience with multi ethnic places has been from London and as you say it's a very tolerant place, I was very surprised how apparent it was in America, even in places like New York.
 

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,885
2,125
126
No idear. Y'er gunna need an escape goat.

150044d1259395641-nuts-escapegoat.jpg
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,372
3,451
126
I should add something to my list above. Something that I am struggling to completely understand after my last stay in Europe...they seem to be utilizing technology better. They have better internet, environmental standards and gas mileage, better mobile communication networks, etc. I don't understand why we have fallen behind.

Just a side point about communications and healthcare: Our size and decentralization hurts a lot. European countries have much more centralzied population centers that allow for easier distribution of recent technologies and medical care.

For example - the WHO lists a countries expected health care ranking*. This takes into account factors like centralization and country size, population statistics etc. Under their view of an ideal situation the US would be ranked 16th in Health Care (Last time I checked) - behind countries like France and Switzerland under ideal conditions

This is - by no means - to say the situation is perfect and needs no changes. It's just important to keep in mind that while good ideas exist in other countries they cannot necessarily be applied to our situation with the same expectation of results

*Edit: At least it used to. I cannot find it on their reports anymore
 
Last edited:
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Just a side point about communications and healthcare: Our size and decentralization hurts a lot. European countries have much more centralzied population centers that allow for easier distribution of recent technologies and medical care.

For example - the WHO lists a countries expected health care ranking*. This takes into account factors like centralization and country size, population statistics etc. Under their view of an ideal situation the US would be ranked 16th in Health Care (Last time I checked) - behind countries like France and Switzerland under ideal conditions

This is - by no means - to say the situation is perfect and needs no changes. It's just important to keep in mind that while good ideas exist in other countries they cannot necessarily be applied to our situation with the same expectation of results

I don't buy this claim about the overriding importance of centralization and population density with regards to the cost of health care. I suspect that it's a bogus argument put out by the free marketers to muddy the waters of the debate. Lots of towns with 50,000 people can feasibly have small regional hospitals; it's not like putting a man on the moon for each such city.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
The key is having more than two parties, that way different parts of the political scene can be represented.

What we would need is some sort of a Parliamentary-type of system where the House or Senate is elected on a national basis with seats being distributed based on the percentage of votes received. That way supporters of socialism could get a couple people into Congress, etc.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
I don't buy this claim about the overriding importance of centralization and population density with regards to the cost of health care. I suspect that it's a bogus argument put out by the free marketers to muddy the waters of the debate. Lots of towns with 50,000 people can feasibly have small regional hospitals; it's not like putting a man on the moon for each such city.

Wait, you think there is a substantial free market health care system? That would mean I could bill and be paid what I asked for. Instead we are told what we are going to be paid ans what to charge the patient. Also 50k people? Have you looked at the population density of the US vs. European nations or Japan?

Nope.
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
5,210
1,580
136
Regardless of how poor we think we are, this is the wealthiest nation on the planet.
Have you ever left your nation? Then you would know it's not true. Especially infrastructure. UK sucks too in that department compared to other western Europe countries. I'm actually inclined to split the first world in 2 groups and USA would not be int he top one...


All of Europe is on the verge of a meltdown and you think we have problem??

We are still very lucky at this point. When people start burning cities then we can start to worry.

Europe is much more diverse than the average American believes and you just confirm the Cliché of the clueless American. Only place they are "burning cities" is UK.
The only thing that is "on the verge of a meltdown" is the common currency € Euro which in general was a dumb idea from the beginning.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Have you ever left your nation? Then you would know it's not true. Especially infrastructure. UK sucks too in that department compared to other western Europe countries. I'm actually inclined to split the first world in 2 groups and USA would not be int he top one...

*yawn* You're just putting in your opinion and acting like it's worth more than his. If you look at actual statistics though, the US is one of the richest countries of the world. You may have small countries like Norway or Switzerland have higher stats in some areas but it's like comparing apples and oranges.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Have you ever left your nation? Then you would know it's not true. Especially infrastructure. UK sucks too in that department compared to other western Europe countries. I'm actually inclined to split the first world in 2 groups and USA would not be int he top one...

What EU countries have superior infrastructure to the U.S.? I'd like to hear this list.

Europe is much more diverse than the average American believes and you just confirm the Cliché of the clueless American. Only place they are "burning cities" is UK.
The only thing that is "on the verge of a meltdown" is the common currency € Euro which in general was a dumb idea from the beginning.

Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy have also seen riots due to austerity measures being proposed. I'm sure Ireland would have seen riots too if the entire damn country hadn't up and left when they went into their recession.
 

crownjules

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2005
4,858
0
76
Figured I'd toss this here rather than a new thread since it sort of responds to the OP:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/09/cnn-poll-time-to-clean-house-in-congress/?hpt=hp_t2

Washington (CNN) – Need more evidence that Americans are extremely angry at Congress?

Well, here you go: According to a new national survey, for the first time ever most Americans don't believe their own member of Congress deserves re-election.

Read full results (pdf).

And the CNN/ORC International Poll released Tuesday also indicates that while Republicans may have had the upper hand in the recent battle over raising the debt ceiling, they appear to have lost a lot of ground with the public and the party's unfavorable rating is now at an all time high.

Only 41 percent of people questioned say the lawmaker in their district in the U.S. House of Representatives deserves to be re-elected - the first time ever in CNN polling that that figure has dropped below 50 percent. Forty-nine percent say their representative doesn't deserve to be re-elected in 2012. And with ten percent unsure, it's the first time that a majority has indicated that they would boot their representative out of office if they had the chance today.

"That 41 percent, in the polling world, is an amazing figure. Throughout the past two decades, in good times and bad, Americans have always liked their own member of Congress despite abysmal ratings for Congress in general," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Now anti-incumbent sentiment is so strong that most Americans are no longer willing to give their own representative the benefit of the doubt. If that holds up, it could be an early warning of an electorate that is angrier than any time in living memory."

As for all members of Congress, the poll indicates only a quarter of the public says most members of Congress deserve to be re-elected.

A lot of that anger seems directed toward the GOP. According to the survey, favorable views of the Republican party dropped eight points over the past month, to 33 percent. Fifty-nine percent say they have an unfavorable view of the Republican party, an all-time high dating back to 1992 when the question was first asked.

The poll indicates that views of the Democratic party, by contrast, have remained fairly steady, with 47 percent saying they have a favorable view of the Democrats and an equal amount saying they hold an unfavorable view.

"The Democratic party, which had a favorable rating just a couple of points higher than the GOP in July, now has a 14-point advantage over the Republican party," adds Holland.

The same pattern holds for the parties' leaders in Congress. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the top Democrat in the chamber, have never had great numbers, but the public's view of them have remained essentially unchanged in the wake of the debt ceiling debate. But House Speaker John Boehner's favorable rating has dropped 10 points, and his unfavorable rating is up to 40 percent, a new high for him. On the Senate side, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell isn't faring much better - his unfavorable rating is 39 percent, a seven-point increase since July.

The poll indicates that Americans' views of the tea party movement have also turned more negative, with 51 percent saying they have a negative view of the two-year-old limited government and anti-tax grassroots movement, with favorable ratings dropping from 37 percent down to 31 percent. Freshman House Republicans elected with major support from tea party activists were instrumental in keeping any tax increases out of the agreement to raise the nation's debt ceiling.

The CNN poll was conducted by ORC International on August 5-7, with 1,008 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey was conducted both before and after Friday night's downgrading of the country's credit rating by Standard and Poor's. The poll's overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

Basically, it's saying most Americans are fed up with politicians in Congress on both sides. Only 41% of those polled say they're reps deserve re-election. And it seems most Americans are directing it towards the GOP. I think that's a fair assessment considering they ask for so many concessions to entitlements and adamantly refuse to give way on things that effect their base of power (ie. corporations and the wealthy elite).
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
It's a little like a soda machine with any flavor you like - cola, root beer, lime, orange - but whatever soda you choose sends the same money to the same corporation.

Whatever the public 'mood' of who they WANT to elect, there will be a candidate with that flavor for them to 'choose' - you want a black liberal, here's Obama! You in rage, here's a ticket to a Koch-funded bus to a tea party rally! You want a a smooth wealthy candidate? Here's Mitt Romney!

There are plenty of other candidates who are more authentic 'public servants', who just happen not to have much of a chance in our money-driven system, by design.

Say the public is ready for an anti-Bush - 'we want a people's candidate, who will reverse Bush policies for the rich, not choose war so easily, protect civil rights and so on'.

There's no shortage of such candidates - there could be a hundreds or more. So which ones manage to 'stand out' as the one who actually can win a primary against 100 others? The one with the backing.

It's a two-part filter. The public gets to pick from the short list - they can have the hippy community organizer or the cowboy or the astronaut - but the monied interests influence who is on the list.

It doesn't work 100%, there are accidents who get in power - Carter, JFK, Teddy Roosevelt - but is it a coincidence a 'bubba' goes from poverty to President like Clinton? He showed he was a 'flavor' people liked, winning governor as a 13 year old (I exaggerate for effect, but the young AL governor ever) - and then, surprise surprise, he found the backing needed for the presidency but just so happened to preside over dismantling FDR regulations like Wall Street wanted.

It doesn't exactly make him a 'bad person' or 'total sellout', but there were arguments for those things - 'they're obsolete, and the US market needs to compete in the global economy, not to have handcuffs from the government' - that he would support, and that's what mattered, and let him be 'acceptable' to the interests.

You don't much see candidates win who violate either of those rules - total sellouts who the people don't want, or people the public loves who don't get the funding and backing.

Someone had a thread, how do we elect idiots like Rick Perry - this is how, the sellout to get the backing, and the 'charisma' to attract voters give us a horrible politician over better, less funded candidates.
Lot of truth in this post. Over my lifetime I'd say only Carter, Reagan and Truman were truly not products of the respective parties. Carter was purely a reaction to Nixon, Reagan had the ability to go around the media and directly touch the people, and Truman was a hurried choice after FDR was confronted with Wallace's collusion with the Soviets - a man who had truly been a product of the Democrat Party, but who became his own man in the White House.

It's not just powerful monied interests though, it's also us as voters. We want free stuff, preferably paid for by someone else, at the least bought on credit. The two parties are so similar because it's what we demand. So to become President, one has to follow the strictures of the independents (who largely don't follow politics) as well as the outlying policies of the party (can't compromise on everything) as well as satisfying the wealthy and corporate faction who fund both sides. Each party's candidate has to serve three masters, two of whom are identical. And even when an outlier gets elected POTUS, he still has to sway a majority of 535 in Congress to accomplish anything out of the ordinary - and most of them will not be outliers.

And personally I'd say Kucinich, Nader and Sanders are damn near the three worst candidates who have ever run, so YMMV.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,999
109
106
Meh, I felt the need to post in this thread again because of the title. I find it amusing, yet so very, very true.

Americans are stoopid.

:D
 

randomrogue

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2011
5,462
0
0
Although those statistics and that article are interesting the problem I have is that people don't seem to realize that both parties are practically identical and they both deserve an equally unfavorable rating. They cater to the lowest common denominator and use tried and true issues for getting elected that have nothing to do with their actual job.

So frustrating since Congress seems like one of the few jobs in America where your job performance isn't actually measured by a boss since their boss is us and most people don't even know what they do. If the American public had a clue we would fire all of them.

Something has to change. We need new faces and ideas in Congress but due to the system we have I don't think that's going to happen. The best we can do is vote them all out of office. All of them! The parlimentary system at least gets new faces and ideas in there (even if they can be wackos) if they get enough votes.
 

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
10,948
3,459
136
Wait, you think there is a substantial free market health care system? That would mean I could bill and be paid what I asked for. Instead we are told what we are going to be paid ans what to charge the patient. Also 50k people? Have you looked at the population density of the US vs. European nations or Japan?

Nope.

Number of hospital places/1000 people :

USA 3
France 7
Germany 8

Density is in no way related to such a statistic, wich , as such
is meaningfull in comparing the healthcare systems quality.
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Number of hospital places/1000 people :

USA 3
France 7
Germany 8

Density is in no way related to such a statistic, wich , as such
is meaningfull in comparing the healthcare systems quality.

In any organizational system you can name it costs more to provide services when the density of those served lessens.

Would you give an example of where it would cost less to provide a service for a thousand people over a large area vs a small one?
 

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
10,948
3,459
136
In any organizational system you can name it costs more to provide services when the density of those served lessens.

Would you give an example of where it would cost less to provide a service for a thousand people over a large area vs a small one?

The numbers i quoted say that the US has 60% less hospitals/inabitants
than EU typical countries , so we can conclude that 120% more hospitals
are necessary to reach parity.

This would decrease services costs with the unexpected benefit
of better geographical repartition of the added value.

Anyway, can we speak of efficency about such a system that
provide 50% less services while costing as much as 80% more
in term of part of the GDP ?..

The US system has at much 30% of the european system yield at equal cost.
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
The numbers i quoted say that the US has 60% less hospitals/inabitants
than EU typical countries , so we can conclude that 120% more hospitals
are necessary to reach parity.

This would decrease services costs with the unexpected benefit
of better geographical repartition of the added value.

Anyway, can we speak of efficency about such a system that
provide 50% less services while costing as much as 80% more
in term of part of the GDP ?..

The US system has at much 30% of the yield the european system yield at equal cost.

Excepting disaster we haven't a shortage of hospital beds so we don't need to double that.

Let's pick a different metric.
The US has roughly 33 MRI machines per million. Germany has 9.5. Why is Germany so far behind?
 

randomrogue

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2011
5,462
0
0
I can answer that. An MRI costs 5000 dollars or more to the customer and doctors recommend them for many things that are not needed to avoid being sued. Therefore that million dollar machine pays for itself much faster.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
I can answer that. An MRI costs 5000 dollars or more to the customer and doctors recommend them for many things that are not needed to avoid being sued. Therefore that million dollar machine pays for itself much faster.

So Germany doesn't hold it's practitioners to the same standards as Americans do? Interesting.
 

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
10,948
3,459
136
Let's pick a different metric.
The US has roughly 33 MRI machines per million. Germany has 9.5. Why is Germany so far behind?

There s no metric in this "metric" , i.e , it s a dimensionless measure,
or said otherwise , the measure of the number of MRI/1000 inhabitants,
it does say nothing about efficency wich can be measured only in term
of results.

I could have ultra high end gear that produce worthless and overpriced
goods that i can sell since there s no real concurrence...

So Germany doesn't hold it's practitioners to the same standards as Americans do? Interesting.

Their system is cost efficient , no MRI session if not needed.
People are more responsibles, both practitionners and clients...
Anyway, the statistics show that the global services are
least efficient in the US , as displayed by infant mortality
or life expectancy.
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Anyway the point is this. Population density doesn't account for everything however it does play a real factor. If 1000 people living in a square mile expected a pizza in 15 minutes it would cost less to provide than the same number occupying 100 times that area. That's just logistics and dance around with MRIs or hospital beds or anything you like, providing service costs more because it has to. Is it the only reason? Of course not, but pointedly ignored is the fact that we partition ourselves into a cubicle lifestyle. We exercise less, we eat more, we get stressed more than many nations. We don't have a rest time scheduled in the day as many cultures do. We kill each other in the inner city and on and on and on. We're high maintenance and guess what? That exacts a price and not just in dollars alone. Want German healthcare? Be German in Germany. This isn't their reality, it's ours.
 

randomrogue

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2011
5,462
0
0
You used an example and didn't like the answer.

Someone dig up the statistic on how much the USA pays for healthcare per person. It's astronomical and inefficient. We've all seen the charts and the USA dot isn't even in the same neighborhood.

That's not a good thing. You see if you want to talk about quality then I'll agree all day long that the USA has the best quality healthcare I've had. However at what cost? It costs twice as much to get 10% better healthcare and more often than not it is at the expense of my time since something simple like getting my back checked out involves a doctor, 2 nurses, and 3 specialists to tell me that I have nothing wrong with me other than a back ache. A doctor in Germany would have gotten to the same answer in half the time and half the cost because he's not afraid of being sued all the time.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
There s no metric in this "metric" , i.e , it s a dimensionless measure,
or said otherwise , the measure of the number of MRI/1000 inhabitants,
it does say nothing about efficency wich can be measured only in term
of results.

I could have ultra high end gear that produce worthless and overpriced
goods that i can sell since there s no real concurrence...

You pick number of unnecessary hospital beds. So? I pick MRI's. Neither is a measure of what it costs to provide care because all care in all situations isn't equal, and why on earth would we want to increase the number of beds beyond what is needed? Has it occurred to you that our situations (see my above post) are different? When you go to a physician are you better off having more beds if you aren't admitted and haven't a need for them?

In any case the one of the goals of medicine should be to reduce the number of beds needed. Perhaps if another nation needs that many it's because they are doing something wrong. You've picked an arbitrary number of "somethings" which we don't need more of and use that as a standard and those are things we don't want to need more of.

Arguing apples and oranges makes no sense.