For U.S Citizens Only: Do you support universal health care

[ElFenix]

in testimony before the US congress, Commonwealth Fund president Karen Davis observed that admin expenses for private insurance programs are about two and a half times higher than those for public programs.


from all the largesse wasted on pushing paper there could be a base level of medical spending for every uninsured person in the US.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Zebo

What's wrong? The Accountants instead of Doctors are deciding what medical treatments are needed.

that is a common myth of managed care.

 

[MySoS]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Krk3561

Originally posted by: Zebo
Pretty good link.

http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf

Shows we pay at least 2x more and get much less than all other industrial nations. Not only that only 40% are happy with our system while danish are 91% happy...

Socialism indeed is the wave of future, like Star Trek, As I said eariler socio-capitalistic government method actually works, the far right hates for you to point it out, they really hate people like the Swedes and Nords who are *rich* and have practiced socio-capitalism for 70 years.... What is ripping America apart is the fact that the capitalists have fought tooth and nail to NOT make the real leap to such a system - instead giving half-hearted attempts..This is what's ripping America apart socially and economically. As I alwasy say, why should you care about a society that does'nt care about you?

Yes, the economies of Sweden and Norway are such international juggernauts.

Regardless of their economical position as a whole in the world today, Sweden and Norway have, overall, the highest standards of living in the world today. That's more important than winning a "who has the most money" contest.

Facts about Sweden.

1. Swedens median income is less than half of the United States.
2. If U.S poverty standards were to be applied to sweden more than half of their people would be impoverish.
3. The purchasing power of Americans is over 3 times then people in Sweden. The average American is able to purchase more goods and service than the average person in sweden. Sweden is not full of "rich" people like you think.



Just wanted to correct that. However I still think we should have Universal Health Care.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Zebo If they determine every worker deserves a 25$ an hour and health care, there is no logical reason to think it can't be implemented.

because very soon that $25 an hour would be the equivalent of $7 an hour or whatever they're making now. you can't change real buying power by dictating a nominal wage.

Soon? how long?

Doesn't work that way no matter how many times you hear it from the cheap-labor conservatives.
http://www.eh.net/hmit/inflation/inflationq.php

We created the minimum wage in 1938. We have raised it from time to time since then. Notable examples would be 1957, 1963, and 1996. Take a look at the inflation numbers for the years immediately following.


1957 3.38
1958 2.98
1959 .58
1960 1.72
1961 1.13
1962 1.12
1963 1.10
1964 1.37
1965 1.62
1966 2.92
1967 2.84
1968 4.26
1969 5.29

How about the 1996 increase?

1996 2.96
1997 2.35
1998 1.51
1999 2.21
2000 3.38
2001 2.86

OMG The rate of inflation actually went down right after these increases in the minimum wage. Sorta blows that "thoery" outta the water.

How can this be? Those businesses have competitors. If one raises his prices to "cover the costs" and his competition "stands pat", his competitor takes market share because the competitor?s prices are now lower, and he makes up for the increased costs in volume. Also you now have "empowered" another person, the employee to compete against his former boss by giving him an opportunity for savings to build his own mouse trap and compete. There are is another very important point at play here. Unlike a low wage envrioment this higher wage environment produces more demand on the bottom which gets spent on more goods and service which in turn produces economic expansion which benfits everyone, even owners. Not only is there no inflation, there is economic expansion under high wage enviroment because wage earners spend like no tomorrow, unlike the weathly (that how thay got that way BTW)

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: MySoS

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Krk3561

Originally posted by: Zebo
Pretty good link.

http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf

Shows we pay at least 2x more and get much less than all other industrial nations. Not only that only 40% are happy with our system while danish are 91% happy...

Socialism indeed is the wave of future, like Star Trek, As I said eariler socio-capitalistic government method actually works, the far right hates for you to point it out, they really hate people like the Swedes and Nords who are *rich* and have practiced socio-capitalism for 70 years.... What is ripping America apart is the fact that the capitalists have fought tooth and nail to NOT make the real leap to such a system - instead giving half-hearted attempts..This is what's ripping America apart socially and economically. As I alwasy say, why should you care about a society that does'nt care about you?

Yes, the economies of Sweden and Norway are such international juggernauts.

Regardless of their economical position as a whole in the world today, Sweden and Norway have, overall, the highest standards of living in the world today. That's more important than winning a "who has the most money" contest.

Facts about Sweden.

1. Swedens median income is less than half of the United States.
2. If U.S poverty standards were to be applied to sweden more than half of their people would be impoverish.
3. The purchasing power of Americans is over 3 times then people in Sweden. The average American is able to purchase more goods and service than the average person in sweden. Sweden is not full of "rich" people like you think.



Just wanted to correct that. However I still think we should have Universal Health Care.

1)
Those wen't facts. Facts GDP - per capita aka purchasing power parity from CIA....Your math is way off. And being in the top twenty is rich by definition.

1 Luxembourg $ 44,000 2002 est.
2 United States $ 37,600 2002 est.
3 San Marino $ 34,600 2001 est.
4 Norway $ 31,800 2002 est.
5 Switzerland $ 31,700 2002 est.
6 Ireland $ 30,500 2002 est.
7 Canada $ 29,400 2002 est.
8 Belgium $ 29,000 2002 est.
9 Denmark $ 29,000 2002 est.
10 Japan $ 28,000 2002 est.
11 Austria $ 27,700 2002 est.
12 Australia $ 27,000 2002 est.
13 Monaco $ 27,000 1999 est.
14 Netherlands $ 26,900 2002 est.
15 Germany $ 26,600 2002 est.
16 Finland $ 26,200 2002 est.
17 Hong Kong $ 26,000 2002 est.
18 France $ 25,700 2002 est.
19 Sweden $ 25,400 2002 est.
20 United Kingdom $ 25,300 2002 est.

2) Poverty? LOL you even been there? You don't see the levels of poverty and filth like in the USA. Maybe they kill them? No that happens here too... Go to inner cities or our rural trailor parks sometime and you'll see plenty of 40 yr olds near thier death bed, trash everywhere, cars on blocks. Some places I felt unsafe to even be driving through. Why because those stats are BS, we have extreme poverty here that are unacceptable for such a wealthy country and unseen in nordic europe. We have extreme wealth many billionaires and millions of millionaires skewing the high income stat and hidding the misery.

3) LINK? Proof? Source? See #2 the stats are misleading because of great disparity here. I'm 100% positive you'd rather live in downtown Stockholm than in downtown Detroit.

Just wanted to correct that. However I still think they go too far on the socialist end of things

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Soon? how long?

Doesn't work that way no matter how many times you hear it from the cheap-labor conservatives.
http://www.eh.net/hmit/inflation/inflationq.php

We created the minimum wage in 1938. We have raised it from time to time since then. Notable examples would be 1957, 1963, and 1996. Take a look at the inflation numbers for the years immediately following.


1957 3.38
1958 2.98
1959 .58
1960 1.72
1961 1.13
1962 1.12
1963 1.10
1964 1.37
1965 1.62
1966 2.92
1967 2.84
1968 4.26
1969 5.29

How about the 1996 increase?

1996 2.96
1997 2.35
1998 1.51
1999 2.21
2000 3.38
2001 2.86

OMG The rate of inflation actually went down right after these increases in the minimum wage. Sorta blows that "thoery" outta the water.

How can this be? Those businesses have competitors. If one raises his prices to "cover the costs" and his competition "stands pat", his competitor takes market share because the competitor?s prices are now lower, and he makes up for the increased costs in volume. Also you now have "empowered" another person, the employee to compete against his former boss by giving him an opportunity for savings to build his own mouse trap and compete. There are is another very important point at play here. Unlike a low wage envrioment this higher wage environment produces more demand on the bottom which gets spent on more goods and service which in turn produces economic expansion which benfits everyone, even owners. Not only is there no inflation, there is economic expansion under high wage enviroment because wage earners spend like no tomorrow, unlike the weathly (that how thay got that way BTW)

ummm... not really. the data are well known to be inaccurate because the de jure minimum wage is pretty much always raised when the de facto minimum wage is above the de jure. and it isn't raised above the de facto minimum wage either. plus, everyone knows a de jure minimum wage hike is coming well in advance, so any increase in prices would happen before the hike.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: MySoS
Facts about Sweden.

1. Swedens median income is less than half of the United States.

1)
Those wen't facts. Facts GDP - per capita aka purchasing power parity from CIA....Your math is way off. And being in the top twenty is rich by definition.

1 Luxembourg $ 44,000 2002 est.
2 United States $ 37,600 2002 est.
3 San Marino $ 34,600 2001 est.
4 Norway $ 31,800 2002 est.
5 Switzerland $ 31,700 2002 est.
6 Ireland $ 30,500 2002 est.
7 Canada $ 29,400 2002 est.
8 Belgium $ 29,000 2002 est.
9 Denmark $ 29,000 2002 est.
10 Japan $ 28,000 2002 est.
11 Austria $ 27,700 2002 est.
12 Australia $ 27,000 2002 est.
13 Monaco $ 27,000 1999 est.
14 Netherlands $ 26,900 2002 est.
15 Germany $ 26,600 2002 est.
16 Finland $ 26,200 2002 est.
17 Hong Kong $ 26,000 2002 est.
18 France $ 25,700 2002 est.
19 Sweden $ 25,400 2002 est.
20 United Kingdom $ 25,300 2002 est.

fact: you're comparing median to mean.

 

[MySoS]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: MySoS
Facts about Sweden.

1. Swedens median income is less than half of the United States.

1)
Those wen't facts. Facts GDP - per capita aka purchasing power parity from CIA....Your math is way off. And being in the top twenty is rich by definition.

1 Luxembourg $ 44,000 2002 est.
2 United States $ 37,600 2002 est.
3 San Marino $ 34,600 2001 est.
4 Norway $ 31,800 2002 est.
5 Switzerland $ 31,700 2002 est.
6 Ireland $ 30,500 2002 est.
7 Canada $ 29,400 2002 est.
8 Belgium $ 29,000 2002 est.
9 Denmark $ 29,000 2002 est.
10 Japan $ 28,000 2002 est.
11 Austria $ 27,700 2002 est.
12 Australia $ 27,000 2002 est.
13 Monaco $ 27,000 1999 est.
14 Netherlands $ 26,900 2002 est.
15 Germany $ 26,600 2002 est.
16 Finland $ 26,200 2002 est.
17 Hong Kong $ 26,000 2002 est.
18 France $ 25,700 2002 est.
19 Sweden $ 25,400 2002 est.
20 United Kingdom $ 25,300 2002 est.

fact: you're comparing median to mean.

So I was a little off about it being less than off. It is still significantly less. There other 2 things however are true. However the other things I said are true.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: MySoS

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Krk3561

Originally posted by: Zebo
Pretty good link.

http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf

Shows we pay at least 2x more and get much less than all other industrial nations. Not only that only 40% are happy with our system while danish are 91% happy...

Socialism indeed is the wave of future, like Star Trek, As I said eariler socio-capitalistic government method actually works, the far right hates for you to point it out, they really hate people like the Swedes and Nords who are *rich* and have practiced socio-capitalism for 70 years.... What is ripping America apart is the fact that the capitalists have fought tooth and nail to NOT make the real leap to such a system - instead giving half-hearted attempts..This is what's ripping America apart socially and economically. As I alwasy say, why should you care about a society that does'nt care about you?

Yes, the economies of Sweden and Norway are such international juggernauts.

Regardless of their economical position as a whole in the world today, Sweden and Norway have, overall, the highest standards of living in the world today. That's more important than winning a "who has the most money" contest.

Facts about Sweden.

1. Swedens median income is less than half of the United States.
2. If U.S poverty standards were to be applied to sweden more than half of their people would be impoverish.
3. The purchasing power of Americans is over 3 times then people in Sweden. The average American is able to purchase more goods and service than the average person in sweden. Sweden is not full of "rich" people like you think.



Just wanted to correct that. However I still think we should have Universal Health Care.

I said nothing about how rich each individual person is. I said "standard of living". If you think that purchasing expensive goods and services leads to a higher quality of life, then you may have a point. But I think most people would agree that simply having job security, food, and a roof over your head is a fine start, and Sweden and Norway provide these to more people, relatively, than the US.

 

[El Gimpo Suave]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
no way, that isn't in the constitution

leave that kind of crap to communist/socialist countries

how about the structure of our NATIONAL military ? We do many things ,as a nation, that AINT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

 

[Ike0069]

I there wasn't a drug problem here in the US, we would be much better off. Universal health care would be helping these idiots that chose to desatroy their bodies by the time they are 40. Now not all in poverty are drug addicts, but if we removed all the addicts, we would be able to take care of the rest.
Conclusion, You can't help everybody, and since singling out addicts would be "wrong", everyone suffers.
That says nothing about the cost of health care for the idiots that smoke. I don't want to pay for those jackasses either.
Universal Healthcare is a bad idea!!

 

[aircooled]

Yes. I support it. Cant do any worse than the HMO's and other insurance.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: sao123

I have a feeling that sao123 is one of those disgruntled "have nots".

While, I am not one of the upper middle class of america, I have more than enough to survive and be content.

You sir are the type of person who would rather see other people suffer in need while you collect an overabundance of possessions and wealth. Rather than a society where everyone has everything they need, and equally possibly a few of the nicer pleasures in life. Like the rich man of today, You choose to supress everyone who does not live up to your standards. Those who are not as gifted, smart, and fortunate as you in the name of your own selfish personal gain.

Excuse me, but what he said is essentially "work or die".

Since you are opposed to programs such as unified health care, social security, welfare, and all associated programs, arent you saying the same thing?

You're talking about outright killing people, did I ever say that? If they can't make it without a constant crutch...

What ever happened to working to make your life better instead of sitting around waiting for the next handout?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: El Gimpo Suave

Originally posted by: FoBoT
no way, that isn't in the constitution

leave that kind of crap to communist/socialist countries

how about the structure of our NATIONAL military ? We do many things ,as a nation, that AINT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

Have you read the Constitution?

The preamble says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Note it says "PROVIDE for the common defense." Yet only "PROMOTE the general welfare"?

Article one, section eight gives Congress the power to:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: El Gimpo Suave

Originally posted by: FoBoT
no way, that isn't in the constitution

leave that kind of crap to communist/socialist countries

how about the structure of our NATIONAL military ? We do many things ,as a nation, that AINT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

Have you read the Constitution?

The preamble says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Note it says "PROVIDE for the common defense." Yet only "PROMOTE the general welfare"?

Article one, section eight gives Congress the power to:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Does that mean we should only have a standing army for two years?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: El Gimpo Suave

Originally posted by: FoBoT
no way, that isn't in the constitution

leave that kind of crap to communist/socialist countries

how about the structure of our NATIONAL military ? We do many things ,as a nation, that AINT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

Have you read the Constitution?

The preamble says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Note it says "PROVIDE for the common defense." Yet only "PROMOTE the general welfare"?

Article one, section eight gives Congress the power to:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Does that mean we should only have a standing army for two years?

No, it means Congress has to appropriate the funding every two years. And they do.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: El Gimpo Suave

Originally posted by: FoBoT
no way, that isn't in the constitution

leave that kind of crap to communist/socialist countries

how about the structure of our NATIONAL military ? We do many things ,as a nation, that AINT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

Have you read the Constitution?

The preamble says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Note it says "PROVIDE for the common defense." Yet only "PROMOTE the general welfare"?

Article one, section eight gives Congress the power to:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Does that mean we should only have a standing army for two years?

No, it means Congress has to appropriate the funding every two years. And they do.

Hmm, thanks for explaining that part.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Wheezer
Name one thing the goverment has ever taken over and NOT fvcked it up?...I'll be damned if I want them scewing with the health care system.

Everyday I go out to my mailbox, and there in it is all kinds of stuff sent to me by all kinds of people. Every year, my mother sends me birthday card with a $20 in it. In 15 years since I left home, my birthday card has never failed to arrive. Something else that never fails to arrive are bills from my creditors, bank statements, magazine's, and enough junk mail over the years to sink a battleship. I occasionally use "Express Mail" -- which sends to PO boxes, unlike FedEx -- and costs less. I've never had a item sent by "Express Mail" fail to arrive, the next day, just like it was supposed to.

So I don't know what you're talking about. I've heard conservatives complain about the post office, I've never had any bad experience with it. Hell, I wish they'd lose some of the sh1t that they can reliably be counted on to deliver.

"The check is in the mail" is a lie. So is "I never got it."

And we all know how you conservatives love punitive government agencies like the military, prison system, law enforcement... you guys never saw a spending bill on those you did'nt like and hold them in high esteem maybe even think they are effecient. Again I don't know what you're talking about. Any large corp is more cluster fuksed than our government... Call Dell sometime for support. Or your insurance company for an MRI

so your shinnig example of our goverment at work is the Post Office?...ok you convinced me....if they can handle the mail, surely they can handle a national health system....

 

[sao123]

What ever happened to working to make your life better instead of sitting around waiting for the next handout?

How about working to make everyones life better instead of just your own pathetic little flame.

You're talking about outright killing people, did I ever say that? If they can't make it without a constant crutch...

The way I see it... everyone has a job regardless of what it is. No-one needs two. Everyone gets equal pay. Everyone has equal access to free health and education. There is no longer any poor, middle or wealthy. All are equal, everyone works, and there is plenty of resources to go, around enough for everyone to live comfortably. The only reason for people to need a permanent crutch now is either mental/physical disability, or becoming elderly. In either case, a crutch is provided for those. No-one is left out and dying. The only remaining people are those who are able to work and are just too LAZY to not. These are the people who you just let die, because they are the true bottom feeders of society.

 

[Kilrsat]

Originally posted by: sao123

What ever happened to working to make your life better instead of sitting around waiting for the next handout?

How about working to make everyones life better instead of just your own pathetic little flame.

You're talking about outright killing people, did I ever say that? If they can't make it without a constant crutch...

The way I see it... everyone has a job regardless of what it is. No-one needs two. Everyone gets equal pay. Everyone has equal access to free health and education. There is no longer any poor, middle or wealthy. All are equal, everyone works, and there is plenty of resources to go, around enough for everyone to live comfortably. The only reason for people to need a permanent crutch now is either mental/physical disability, or becoming elderly. In either case, a crutch is provided for those. No-one is left out and dying. The only remaining people are those who are able to work and are just too LAZY to not. These are the people who you just let die, because they are the true bottom feeders of society.

So I can work as a bricklayer, a receptionist, or a CEO of Cisco systems and all earn the same wage? Sign me up for receptionist duty. Brilliant idea! Why should I bust my ass working 5 times as hard as the next guy if we're all going to get equal compensation in the end? That's why your brilliant idea can't, won't, and never will work.

You're first in line for bricklayer, construction worker, or other manual labor duty, right? You wouldn't be expecting other people to carry the heavy load while you work in an office, would you?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: sao123

The way I see it... everyone has a job regardless of what it is. No-one needs two. Everyone gets equal pay. Everyone has equal access to free health and education. There is no longer any poor, middle or wealthy. All are equal, everyone works, and there is plenty of resources to go, around enough for everyone to live comfortably. The only reason for people to need a permanent crutch now is either mental/physical disability, or becoming elderly. In either case, a crutch is provided for those. No-one is left out and dying. The only remaining people are those who are able to work and are just too LAZY to not. These are the people who you just let die, because they are the true bottom feeders of society.

what motivation do i have to improve anything, then?

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: sao123

What ever happened to working to make your life better instead of sitting around waiting for the next handout?

How about working to make everyones life better instead of just your own pathetic little flame.

You're talking about outright killing people, did I ever say that? If they can't make it without a constant crutch...

The way I see it... everyone has a job regardless of what it is. No-one needs two. Everyone gets equal pay. Everyone has equal access to free health and education. There is no longer any poor, middle or wealthy. All are equal, everyone works, and there is plenty of resources to go, around enough for everyone to live comfortably. The only reason for people to need a permanent crutch now is either mental/physical disability, or becoming elderly. In either case, a crutch is provided for those. No-one is left out and dying. The only remaining people are those who are able to work and are just too LAZY to not. These are the people who you just let die, because they are the true bottom feeders of society.

Got to love Communism, it sounds sooo nice, doesn't it? But guess what, it will never work.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: sao123

The way I see it... everyone has a job regardless of what it is. No-one needs two. Everyone gets equal pay. Everyone has equal access to free health and education. There is no longer any poor, middle or wealthy. All are equal, everyone works, and there is plenty of resources to go, around enough for everyone to live comfortably. The only reason for people to need a permanent crutch now is either mental/physical disability, or becoming elderly. In either case, a crutch is provided for those. No-one is left out and dying. The only remaining people are those who are able to work and are just too LAZY to not. These are the people who you just let die, because they are the true bottom feeders of society.

what motivation do i have to improve anything, then?

Innovation? What's that?

But yeah, I'll bust my ass so LaShawnda can keep pumping out those babies every 9 months.

(P.S. - I love your sig, ElFenix. Wowza.)

 

[exdeath]

Another brilliant post....

Sign me up for another vote against communism.

 

[nCred]

Originally posted by: MySoS

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: MySoS
Facts about Sweden.

1. Swedens median income is less than half of the United States.

1)
Those wen't facts. Facts GDP - per capita aka purchasing power parity from CIA....Your math is way off. And being in the top twenty is rich by definition.

1 Luxembourg $ 44,000 2002 est.
2 United States $ 37,600 2002 est.
3 San Marino $ 34,600 2001 est.
4 Norway $ 31,800 2002 est.
5 Switzerland $ 31,700 2002 est.
6 Ireland $ 30,500 2002 est.
7 Canada $ 29,400 2002 est.
8 Belgium $ 29,000 2002 est.
9 Denmark $ 29,000 2002 est.
10 Japan $ 28,000 2002 est.
11 Austria $ 27,700 2002 est.
12 Australia $ 27,000 2002 est.
13 Monaco $ 27,000 1999 est.
14 Netherlands $ 26,900 2002 est.
15 Germany $ 26,600 2002 est.
16 Finland $ 26,200 2002 est.
17 Hong Kong $ 26,000 2002 est.
18 France $ 25,700 2002 est.
19 Sweden $ 25,400 2002 est.
20 United Kingdom $ 25,300 2002 est.

fact: you're comparing median to mean.

So I was a little off about it being less than off. It is still significantly less. There other 2 things however are true. However the other things I said are true.

No, it is not true.
The median income in Sweden is $27000 and in the US $39000, of course this were numbers from before the weakning of the dollar.

Here´s some poverty numbers..
http://www.ccsd.ca/pubs/2002/olympic/indicators.htm