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

[Zebo]

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?

I don't see the "profit" in getting your ass shot off however every day fine men and women join our armed services. How can that be if people are "inherently greedy" or "only modivated by money"... of course its total BS, I would be on wall street instead of in engineering it that were true.

BTW is conservatives really believe man is "inherently greedy" and "only modivated by money" then obviously the best way to motivate that low wage employee is to pay her a wage sufficient to give her a "profit" over her cost of living requiring a wage substantially above our current miniumum wage, right?

Can't have it both ways...

 

[Hammer]

absolutely not

 

[Kilrsat]

Originally posted by: Zebo

BTW is conservatives really believe man is "inherently greedy" and "only modivated by money" then obviously the best way to motivate that low wage employee is to pay her a wage sufficient to give her a "profit" over her cost of living requiring a wage substantially above our current miniumum wage, right?

Can't have it both ways...

Supply and demand economics work for labor wages as well. The best way to motivate a person willing to work is to offer than a job. If they feel the wage is too low, they don't have to accept that job or they can negociate for more money.

If there is a large pool of workers and few jobs, average labor prices go down. When there are more jobs than workers, labor prices go up. What you run into with unskilled jobs though, is that there is a large number of willing works, and a decent number of jobs. Thus employers can pay at or near the minimum required. Now, do you know any auto-mechanics working for minimum wage? What about plumbers? Carpenters? Construction workers? Cement truck drivers? Semi-truck drivers? Heating/Cooling repair men? The answer is no. Why? These people have a skill that is in demand and they can charge large premiums for their labor. These aren't college educated jobs, these are high-paying blue collar opportunities. They will always be in-demand and for the forseeable future they will be decent paying.

Do I feel bad about the guy working the counter at McDonald's making $5.50/hr? No. Do I feel bad about the walmart cashier making $6/hr? No. Do I feel bad about the person trying to support a family of 4 on minimum wage? No. Why? Because you aren't supposed to be supporting a family on a minimum wage job. Its a starting point, not a sustaining point. You start there, pick up a trade in your time off, and support your family with your real job skills.

I have a brother driving a semi-truck that does deliveries of food products to various restaurants. He brings in ~$50k/yr (in Wisconsin!), his only education is a GED and his truck driving license. Gee, why am I getting a degree again?

 

[Zebo]

Gee, why am I getting a degree again?

Maybe you don't want to be doing scut-work your entire life? Maybe you found intrest in the arts or science? Hell how should I know your modivations? But I do know there are a lot more modivations in play than what you're paid.

I understand Supply and demand that's not the problem, the problem arrises when someone busts their ass in someone else's business enterprise, where they don't earn any "profit" over thier cost of living and are stuck in a trap. That's what's happening today, an unequal distribution on the profit of his labor. While still eating, (thanks to meager minimum wage) they don't have resources to attand that truck driving school or buy health insurance. Course w/o minimum wage, since as you correctly point out " large pool of workers and few jobs, average labor prices go down even further dictated by laws of supply and demand. They would race tward third world wages with even dimmer prospects.

Balance///

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Zebo


I don't see the "profit" in getting your ass shot off however every day fine men and women join our armed services. How can that be if people are "inherently greedy" or "only modivated by money"... of course its total BS, I would be on wall street instead of in engineering it that were true.

no, people aren't only 'modivated [sic] by money' (i don't know who you're quoting there). there is a large element of personal satisfaction involved in job happiness, and people are going to go where they're the most happy. wall street is a damn high stress environment, and people pay (and get paid) for that. so some people would probably work as hard. but there are a lot that wouldn't. personally, if i were being paid the same i'd rather not have my work follow me home.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Zebo
BTW is conservatives really believe man is "inherently greedy" and "only modivated by money" then obviously the best way to motivate that low wage employee is to pay her a wage sufficient to give her a "profit" over her cost of living requiring a wage substantially above our current miniumum wage, right?

Can't have it both ways...

1) the problem is that if you're paying someone more than their marginal product, then you're losing money and you'd be better off not having them. in low wage settings the marginal product of a worker is low. and it largely can't be improved by properly motivating them. there are only so many toilets a person can clean in an hour, and that number can't be changed no matter how much you pay them. so yes, there is an optimum, but raising the de jure wage beyond that optimum is only going to cause unemployment.


2) the vast vast vast majority of low wage earners are high school students living with mom.

 

[Kilrsat]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Gee, why am I getting a degree again?

Maybe you don't want to be doing scut-work your entire life? Maybe you found intrest in the arts or science? Hell how should I know your modivations? But I do know there are a lot more modivations in play than what you're paid.

I understand Supply and demand that's not the problem, the problem arrises when someone busts their ass in someone else's business enterprise, where they don't earn any "profit" over thier cost of living and are stuck in a trap. That's what's happening today, an unequal distribution on the profit of his labor. While still eating, (thanks to meager minimum wage) they don't have resources to attand that truck driving school or buy health insurance. Course w/o minimum wage, since as you correctly point out " large pool of workers and few jobs, average labor prices go down even further dictated by laws of supply and demand. They would race tward third world wages with even dimmer prospects.

Balance///

Sounds to me like the better solution is a revamping of the education system. Let people learn a trade while they're still young so they don't get stuck in the unskilled labor pool where it requires working twice as hard to get out. Right now the indoctrination in the system really focuses in a wide liberal arts education (quite a bit of which is useless in the workforce). If they offered more tech school type opportunities young adults could enter the workforce with a marketable skill. Thus not stuck at the bottom wrung of the ladder.

I have no problem funding education opportunities with tax money. If someone is taking the time and putting in the effort to get a solid education or learn a trade skill that tells me they're willing to work and want to improve their life. Its about giving someone an opportunity to improve their life if they so choose to work for it, not just handing them a check saying "here ya go. Everyone else had to work for it but, well, we know working is hard so you get the benefits too."

 

[SilverTorch]

No,

Instead of people "dropping dead" you'll have people "dropping dead" waiting in lines.

Who evet put together "Free" Healthcare for everyone must have worked for a marketing firm, b/c as we all know there is no such thing as free in this life. You get Universal Health Care and you also get taxes up the wazoo, no one ever thinks of that.

 

[sao123]

If there is a large pool of workers and few jobs, average labor prices go down. When there are more jobs than workers, labor prices go up. What you run into with unskilled jobs though, is that there is a large number of willing works, and a decent number of jobs. Thus employers can pay at or near the minimum required. Now, do you know any auto-mechanics working for minimum wage? What about plumbers? Carpenters? Construction workers? Cement truck drivers? Semi-truck drivers? Heating/Cooling repair men? The answer is no. Why? These people have a skill that is in demand and they can charge large premiums for their labor. These aren't college educated jobs, these are high-paying blue collar opportunities. They will always be in-demand and for the forseeable future they will be decent paying.

The first problem is that there are way more people supporting families, than there are these jobs av avilable. Capitalistic cost cutting & machinery automation have reduced the need for a larger workforce. In addition there are segments of the population who do not have the education available to them to be able to get into this job segment. Finally, when the capitalist economy is bad and people stop purchasing, these jobs are even further reduced.
If the only job left is at walmart or mcdonald, why should these people not be able to support their family on such a job. in a socialistic society people are not dependent on the number and type of jobs available for them. You can make a living off any job.


------------------


I dont think people understand a true socialistic society. There is no such thing as money. There are no wages, no taxes. No-one loses money, no-one gains money. Everythign is done for the good of the commune, not the individual. You work for food. You work for housing. You work for possessions. You get a couch, everyone gets a couch. you get a car, everyone gets a car. Every couch is equal. Every car is equal. Everyone gets the same amount of food & possessions. Since, there are no profits...there are no cushy jobs like the CEO, the accountants, no office positions whatsoever. Everyone busts their ass providing either goods or services.



------------------

what motivation do i have to improve anything, then?

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?

Perfect examples of why conservatives believe that man is inheritantly greedy. BTW... its only the greedy people who would fight such a system.

 

[Kilrsat]

Originally posted by: sao123
Perfect examples of why conservatives believe that man is inheritantly greedy. BTW... its only the greedy people who would fight such a system.

What I'm asking is, if I'm out busting my ass in the cold/snow/rain/heat for 10 hrs a day and you sit in a since cozy, air conditioned office all day, where is this equality? Sure, we may have the same couch, the same car, the same food, the same healthcare, but my body is taking a beating. I'm bleeding, my joints hurt, and overall my job is making me suffer, while you get to be one of the "elite" that doesn't have to. People aren't only motivating by money, but when they are making sacrificies for their job (such as risking injury, putting forth extreme effort, high stress levels, jobs that basically follow you home) they need to be fairly compenstated for this extra effort.

All your idea will do is change the definition of "ruling elite" from those that have money to those that get the "easy jobs." All jobs are not equal, therefore all compensation should not be equal.

You never did answer me, you will be first in line to be a bricklayer or construction worker, right?

 

[Zebo]

Socalism won't work either. Works well in families because love is the tie that binds (plus dad will whoop you ass) But on large scale you'll end up with greedy people who laugh at the fools still working while they go fishing every day.

 

[MySoS]

Originally posted by: 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.

Just wanted to say I disagree. I think standard of living should include things like puchasing power. How many goods the average citizen could afford. Most would agree that standard of living is highly subjective, and you shouldn't place much weight on it.

 

[MySoS]

Originally posted by: 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

Learn how proverty is calculated in developed nations before you post. Poverty is calculated reativly. It is calculated by looking at how you are compared to others in your own country. The poverty line for developed nations are all different. That number however does show something I think it terrible. It is a reflection on the fact that there is a lot more income stratification in the U.S. Also about income I was refering to REAL income. Learn what REAL income is.

The U.S is one of the richest nations in the world. It is sad how we can't afford to take care of our own people. It is sad that people who genetic disease, cancer, ect are being told they are too expensive to keep alive. It is sad that children grow up suffering because no one will give them medication for disorders they have. Something needs to be done.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: sao123

If there is a large pool of workers and few jobs, average labor prices go down. When there are more jobs than workers, labor prices go up. What you run into with unskilled jobs though, is that there is a large number of willing works, and a decent number of jobs. Thus employers can pay at or near the minimum required. Now, do you know any auto-mechanics working for minimum wage? What about plumbers? Carpenters? Construction workers? Cement truck drivers? Semi-truck drivers? Heating/Cooling repair men? The answer is no. Why? These people have a skill that is in demand and they can charge large premiums for their labor. These aren't college educated jobs, these are high-paying blue collar opportunities. They will always be in-demand and for the forseeable future they will be decent paying.

The first problem is that there are way more people supporting families, than there are these jobs av avilable. Capitalistic cost cutting & machinery automation have reduced the need for a larger workforce. In addition there are segments of the population who do not have the education available to them to be able to get into this job segment. Finally, when the capitalist economy is bad and people stop purchasing, these jobs are even further reduced.
If the only job left is at walmart or mcdonald, why should these people not be able to support their family on such a job. in a socialistic society people are not dependent on the number and type of jobs available for them. You can make a living off any job.


------------------


I dont think people understand a true socialistic society. There is no such thing as money. There are no wages, no taxes. No-one loses money, no-one gains money. Everythign is done for the good of the commune, not the individual. You work for food. You work for housing. You work for possessions. You get a couch, everyone gets a couch. you get a car, everyone gets a car. Every couch is equal. Every car is equal. Everyone gets the same amount of food & possessions. Since, there are no profits...there are no cushy jobs like the CEO, the accountants, no office positions whatsoever. Everyone busts their ass providing either goods or services.



------------------

what motivation do i have to improve anything, then?

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?

Perfect examples of why conservatives believe that man is inheritantly greedy. BTW... its only the greedy people who would fight such a system.

There is no such thing as equity due to a fundamental economics problem known as scarcity.

You say everyone will have a car, but what that means is that the materials and labor devoted to making 1 million high quality expensive cards will be spread thin to make 100 million cars so that everyone can have one. The result is that everyone has a cheap POS car that breaks down 5 times a week.

If you took Bill Gates' money and gave it to everyone, it would be enough for everyone in the US to have like $5 a month extra for the next several years. Does that $5 help anyone? Not really. All you have is +1 more person (being Bill Gates) in the unemployment line drawing on welfare, etc.

I could go on and on, but that is where communism and socialism are fundamentally flawed; they fail to acknowledge that there will never be enough goods and services for everyone, PERIOD. It's like having 100 loafs of bread and 1,000,000 people and insisting you can make it fair. The reality is dividing those 100 loafs of bread so all 1,000,000 people get a piece, then all 1,000,000 people die because it won't be enough.

The same concepts can be applied to medical care or anything else. Also as we all know the government can't do anything efficient, especially if it's trying to be fair and just (equitable). Just compare government run veteran's hospitols to private medical centers... poorly maintained, not enough money, too many people wanting benefits because its free, not enough doctors because they can make more money in private practice, etc.

The bottom line in medical care is people die, period. Socializing it will cause more people to die. What is worse, having everyone die due to poor quality of care and having to pay more taxes on top of it, or allowing people to compete with each other and those who are able to afford it can get it? Essentially, either everyone dies or a few people, those who are willing to work the hardest and contribute more to society, are able to afford it and stay alive.

Fair? No not really, but there is nothing we can do about it, PERIOD.

And as far as McDonald's type jobs, I've worked my share of crap jobs, but realizing I didnt make squat and couldn't afford more of what I wanted gave me the incentive to stay in school, get smarter, etc. and better myself. If all you had were crap ass jobs where everyone got paid the same, you take away that motivation and society as a whole fails to advance itself.

 

[kami333]

Originally posted by: MySoS

Originally posted by: 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

Learn how proverty is calculated in developed nations before you post. Poverty is calculated reativly. It is calculated by looking at how you are compared to others in your own country. The poverty line for developed nations are all different. That number however does show something I think it terrible. It is a reflection on the fact that there is a lot more income stratification in the U.S. Also about income I was refering to REAL income. Learn what REAL income is.

The U.S is one of the richest nations in the world. It is sad how we can't afford to take care of our own people. It is sad that people who genetic disease, cancer, ect are being told they are too expensive to keep alive. It is sad that children grow up suffering because no one will give them medication for disorders they have. Something needs to be done.

lol, reminds me of two articles I read a while back.

Berlingske Tidende (Danish newspaper): 90,000 children in Denmark under poverty level

In 2002, 90,000 children in Denmark were living under the EU?s official
poverty level, according to a new report from Save the Children and the
Institute of Social Research. The EU?s definition of poverty is a family
with a disposable income of less than 60 per cent of the national average.
The report claims that these children never go on holiday, often have to
share bedrooms with sisters and brothers, and are socially alienated because
they can?t afford the latest fashions or mobile phones.

And the day after or very close on the New York Times: Shhh, Don't Say 'Poverty'

The 12 million families represent 11.2 percent of all U.S. households. "At
some time during the year," the report said, "these households were
uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food for all their members
because they had insufficient money or other resources."

Of the 12 million families that worried about putting food on the table, 3.9
million had members who actually went hungry at some point last year. "The
other two-thirds ...obtained enough food to avoid hunger using a variety of
coping strategies," the report said, "such as eating less varied diets,
participating in federal food assistance programs, or getting emergency food
from community food pantries or emergency kitchens."

 

[nCred]

Originally posted by: MySoS

Originally posted by: 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

Learn how proverty is calculated in developed nations before you post. Poverty is calculated reativly. It is calculated by looking at how you are compared to others in your own country. The poverty line for developed nations are all different. That number however does show something I think it terrible. It is a reflection on the fact that there is a lot more income stratification in the U.S. Also about income I was refering to REAL income. Learn what REAL income is.

The U.S is one of the richest nations in the world. It is sad how we can't afford to take care of our own people. It is sad that people who genetic disease, cancer, ect are being told they are too expensive to keep alive. It is sad that children grow up suffering because no one will give them medication for disorders they have. Something needs to be done.

:roll: You should learn about how to calculate poverty before YOU post, You can´t look just at what you get
in "real income", there are many other factors involved, such as living costs. Few countries have as high iincome levels as the US, few people make more then $20 000 in say Poland, are 90% of the population living in poverty? nope.

Let´s sum up this:

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

False

2. If U.S poverty standards were to be applied to sweden more than half of their people would be impoverish.

Could be true but pointless.

3. The purchasing power of Americans is over 3 times then people in Sweden.

False

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: SilverTorch
You get Universal Health Care and you also get taxes up the wazoo, no one ever thinks of that.

you did see my stat about how much money is wasted pushing paper in the current system, right?

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: kami333

Originally posted by: MySoS

Originally posted by: 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

Learn how proverty is calculated in developed nations before you post. Poverty is calculated reativly. It is calculated by looking at how you are compared to others in your own country. The poverty line for developed nations are all different. That number however does show something I think it terrible. It is a reflection on the fact that there is a lot more income stratification in the U.S. Also about income I was refering to REAL income. Learn what REAL income is.

The U.S is one of the richest nations in the world. It is sad how we can't afford to take care of our own people. It is sad that people who genetic disease, cancer, ect are being told they are too expensive to keep alive. It is sad that children grow up suffering because no one will give them medication for disorders they have. Something needs to be done.

lol, reminds me of two articles I read a while back.

Berlingske Tidende (Danish newspaper): 90,000 children in Denmark under poverty level

In 2002, 90,000 children in Denmark were living under the EU?s official
poverty level, according to a new report from Save the Children and the
Institute of Social Research. The EU?s definition of poverty is a family
with a disposable income of less than 60 per cent of the national average.
The report claims that these children never go on holiday, often have to
share bedrooms with sisters and brothers, and are socially alienated because
they can?t afford the latest fashions or mobile phones.

And the day after or very close on the New York Times: Shhh, Don't Say 'Poverty'

The 12 million families represent 11.2 percent of all U.S. households. "At
some time during the year," the report said, "these households were
uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food for all their members
because they had insufficient money or other resources."

Of the 12 million families that worried about putting food on the table, 3.9
million had members who actually went hungry at some point last year. "The
other two-thirds ...obtained enough food to avoid hunger using a variety of
coping strategies," the report said, "such as eating less varied diets,
participating in federal food assistance programs, or getting emergency food
from community food pantries or emergency kitchens."

Have to share bedrooms and can't afford the latest fashions!? Oh boo hoo!!!

Someone buy me a Ferrari so I can be 733t too... :roll:

 

[g8wayrebel]

No! Responsible people get an education and get jobs with health care. Why should they foot the bill for the lazy and incorrigible. Even McDonalds has health care for employees.
Social medicine removes all incentive to do R&D to produce medical progress.

 

[sao123]

You never did answer me, you will be first in line to be a bricklayer or construction worker, right?

I've laid some brick, and built a house. Drink some beer while doing that hard work...
I'll be there.


Though theoretically... since there are so many people without jobs... and no financial restraints oon hiring people... Theres gonna be more than me and you out there doing construction. There could be, thirty or fifty of us even. the job gets done faster... and no more 10 hour days.

 

[sao123]

Besides...

RobinHood was the good guy. a Hero.
Lets make that inspiration into our government motto of wealth redistribution.
Take from the rich and give to the poor.

 

[thomsbrain]

i think we should have it, but it shouldn't cover non-medical cosmetic surguries, problems caused by the person (obseity, lung cancer for smokers, etc), felons, or people not in good standing with the IRS (don't pay, no service).

furthermore, it should only be available to people who agree to and abide by population control laws. more than one kid = no more free health care.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: sao123
Besides...

RobinHood was the good guy. a Hero.
Lets make that inspiration into our government motto of wealth redistribution.
Take from the rich and give to the poor.

You really can't be serious...

 

[Falloutboy]

Originally posted by: sao123
Socialism is the way of the future. Make the world a better place, a utopia.
Eventually we will have a world where there is no money. A world where there is no social status classes. No gap between the haves and the have nots. Everyone works who can (mandatory employment of some type). Everyone who cant is provided for by those who can. Kill off all the american capitalist nazi's who only think about gaining all the wealth and possessions they can. Selfishness and Laziness are capital crimes punishable by death.

sounds like your a treky

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: g8wayrebel
No! Responsible people get an education and get jobs with health care. Why should they foot the bill for the lazy and incorrigible. Even McDonalds has health care for employees.
Social medicine removes all incentive to do R&D to produce medical progress.

which is why nothing has ever come out of the national labs.