America Is Now a ‘Second Tier’ Country

[Skroe]

I am pretty sure that are people that enjoy better healthcare than you do. Does this change anything? Or is it a proper index?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-global-study/

I rest my case

Okay now what about Massachusetts? That's the entire point of my posts. Like literally the entire point.

Let me put it this way, when you get sick with cancer, where do you want to get treated? Some broke as shit Athens Hospital? Or the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, MA. Because my insurance would cover that. Wanna take a bet who'll make it, me at the world leading institute or you?

I rest my case.

[Dangg]

Ah another american you doesn't understand the difference between "socialist" and "social".
I had the plesure a few weeks ago.

[Skroe]

The Forum Putins dont like Donald anymore.

What a development, from "Hooray Donald" to "America is all about war!".

Ulmita never loved Trump. He only liked him to hurt America. The only thing he hates more than America is his country's principal financer (Angela Merkel).

Yeah we're getting lectured by a Greek. Man that was a funny summer a few years ago. Remember when Alexis Tsipras went from being the bad boy of southern Europe to Merkel's man in Greece inside of a week? Good times.

[Deleted]

Scandinavia has the luxury of having a super low population. It's much easier to manage a country of 3-5 million people than 150 million people. When things go wrong in Denmark, they can fix it rather dynamically and don't have to fear a global crisis as a result. When shit hits the fan in the US, it usually does so in a rather violent fashion and drags the entire world economy down with them.

Now, this isn't just about having a low population, the US tend to favour risky and volatile solutions, which is part of the problem... but a low population certainly gives Scandinavian countries more wriggle room for social experiments. Like Finland's basic income scheme just now.

You make a fine point and I agree, but still, there are some aspects that I feel the US could learn from. I find it so self centered and narrow minded to believe that the US is the best country so adamantly that one overlooks errors and shortcomings that could be prevented and disregard other approaches.

[Deleted]

Okay now what about Massachusetts? That's the entire point of my posts. Like literally the entire point.

Let me put it this way, when you get sick with cancer, where do you want to get treated? Some broke as shit Athens Hospital? Or the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, MA. Because my insurance would cover that. Wanna take a bet who'll make it, me at the world leading institute or you?

I rest my case.

trust me brother, he just a bitter anti-american hating faggot who provides facts out his arse hole, he sees some article and thinks its a fact, Here in italy, we get good health care, but saying america doesnt is stupid, if you have good money and pay for treatments in america like my grandfather last year, he got treated within a week no waiting times, other places it can take months.

people dont go live in america if they are poor, they go there if they have good stable job and not one of those people who get unwell all the time.


[Infracted]

[Shiny212]

Its always fun when theres made up stats to try to make people feel better about their countries.

They're not made up, but indeed the countries at the top don't need the list to have a living standard miles above the American one.

[Skroe]

You make a fine point and I agree, but still, there are some aspects that I feel the US could learn from. I find it so self centered and narrow minded to believe that the US is the best country so adamantly that one can overlook errors and shortcomings that could be prevented and disregard other approaches.

Best is relative. It depends on what one considers a qualifier for those things. It's really a matter of perspective. Many Europeans, impacted by their history would talk about things associated with the social democracy of their countries that has unfurled there over the past 70+ years, combined with cultural pride. Americans would talk about "feats" like world leading science/technology achievements, first-this-or-that, toppling Nazism or communism.

"What's important" is entirely subjective. And for sure, there are many Americans who would see things from the steroeotypical "European perspective" and vice verca.

For my part, I'd rather be a country with worth healthcare and a set of intractable problems that our friends do not suffer from, while be capable of "feats" so to speak, then settling into some kind of non-dynamic state, with those services provided.

Or to put it simply, for example, putting Americans are Mars to stay and build a colony, is more important to me than universal healthcare at any cost. Having a dynamic business environment that engenders things like silicon valley is more important to me than European-style labor protections.

It's all just a matter of opinion.

[Ulmita]

Ulmita never loved Trump. He only liked him to hurt America. The only thing he hates more than America is his country's principal financer (Angela Merkel).

Yeah we're getting lectured by a Greek. Man that was a funny summer a few years ago. Remember when Alexis Tsipras went from being the bad boy of southern Europe to Merkel's man in Greece inside of a week? Good times.

Hahaha, you amuse me. You talk like my nephews. I dont hate Trump, or Hillary. I hate war. Hillary was a phycho bitch who wanted to start a WW3. My votes go directly to the person who is the least warmonger.

Also, the point of this thread isn't about a state. IS ABOUT US HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN GENERAL AND HOW ACCESSIBLE AND AFFORDABLE IS. Which is garbage.

[Skroe]

trust me brother, he just a bitter anti-american hating faggot who provides facts out his arse hole, he sees some article and thinks its a fact, Here in italy, we get good health care, but saying america doesnt is stupid, if you have good money and pay for treatments in america like my grandfather last year, he got treated within a week no waiting times, other places it can take months.

people dont go live in america if they are poor, they go there if they have good stable job and not one of those people who get unwell all the time.

Exactly. The problem is access. It's very unequal in America. if you can get it, it's amazing. 15% of Americans cant't.

Massachusetts or Denmark is a great counter-example to America as a whole. THis is the state of Massachusetts.



Massachusetts is 10,500 square miles (Denmark is 16,000). It has one major city (Boston, in the east) and two minor cities (Worcester, in the middle of the state and Springfield). If I live in Springfield and get sick, I can easily drive to Boston on 90 west. It's about 90 minutes away. This gives me tremendous access to world leading Healthcare, that my insurance will cover, because that's what State law requires. To treat all of Massachusetts, we need world leading hospitals in one hub, for all 6.7 million residents within 10,500 square miles.

Now let's look at Texas.


268,597 square miles. Twenty five times that of Massachusetts. Population of 27 million. That means it's far less dense and just looking at the map you can see that people have to travel far greater distances to get to major cities, and those cities have and uneven quality of healthcare providers. Massachusetts gets by with one hub because it's a 90 minute drive between the most distant densely population regions. Texas needs more than it has for 7-10 hour drives. Way more.


In a sense it's kind of like internet. Many American cities have really, really good internet. Mine in Massachusetts is Comcast cable at 180 Mb/s down. I can get fiber if I wanted to. How much better is many Europeans? Can you beat 180 Mb/s down for cable? But I live in a rich, densely packed region. People two hours north in the woods. will be lucky to get 10 Mb/s.

Scale and inequities is the heart of the problem. Both are fixable through better policy and efficiencies. But neither are trivial.

[Shakadam]

The issue with USA for a long time is that it's a really good place to be rich, and a really quite bad (as far as 1st world nations go) place to be poor.

The difference between the rich and the poor in USA has grown almost exponentially in the last couple of decades and it's now at a point were the large numbers of poor people who really don't have very good lives in the US are dragging down the performance metrics of the country in general.

[Slant]

In a sense it's kind of like internet. Many American cities have really, really good internet. Mine in Massachusetts is Comcast cable at 180 Mb/s down. I can get fiber if I wanted to. How much better is many Europeans? Can you beat 180 Mb/s down for cable? But I live in a rich, densely packed region. People two hours north in the woods. will be lucky to get 10 Mb/s.

Scale and inequities is the heart of the problem. Both are fixable through better policy and efficiencies. But neither are trivial.

More and more friends are getting upgraded to 200 mb/s. So, yes. We can. Especially, since Europe always tended to put cables underground. That includes television cables. The vast majority of German households has a cable TV connection. And more and more of them are using IPTV, making that cable unused. And it allows for much much higher bandwidth than regular telephone cables that are used for DSL. So much, in fact, that one of our ISPs is only selling internet over that cable. At zero costs, because they're already in the ground.

Sometimes it's awesome to live in a region where infrastructure is properly fleshed out. Meanwhile, only a few years ago in Austin, I had to cancel a cinema trip, because a short rain shower led to a blackout. :P

Edit: Just had a look, ISPs are beginning to offer 400 mb/s packages here.

[Sorg]

In a sense it's kind of like internet. Many American cities have really, really good internet. Mine in Massachusetts is Comcast cable at 180 Mb/s down. I can get fiber if I wanted to. How much better is many Europeans? Can you beat 180 Mb/s down for cable? But I live in a rich, densely packed region. People two hours north in the woods. will be lucky to get 10 Mb/s.

I get about double your download speed at probably far less than you pay (about 40€ which is about $44.7 right now)

[Skroe]

Hahaha, you amuse me. You talk like my nephews. I dont hate Trump, or Hillary. I hate war. Hillary was a phycho bitch who wanted to start a WW3. My votes go directly to the person who is the least warmonger.

Yeah maybe you're not up on current events but Trump just gave the US Military a carte blanche in Syria and we've been, you know, spirialing closer to that World War III you didn't want... post Trump, lmao.

Oh, and there are two things you don't have, little Putinista. Money and a vote in the US election. So stick it.

Also, the point of this thread isn't about a state. IS ABOUT US HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN GENERAL AND HOW ACCESSIBLE AND AFFORDABLE IS. Which is garbage.

Which is entirely the point and underscores your incredible lack of care to discuss this seriously. Fixing Healthcare in the US is largely a State issue, not a Federal issue. Massachusetts had Universal healthcare years before Obamacare. It was called Romneycare. The two were similar, and Obamacare eventually superceded it here (to some controversy, because Romneycare was better run apparently).

You're making a fundamental mistake in even diagnosing the problem, much less devising a solution. The United States is NOT a unitary state like say, Greece or France or Finland or the United Kingdom. It's a federation. In fact one of the biggest problems with US politics is a desire for unitary state style-centralized problem solving in Washington, rather than in State capitals. The US is too big, too complicated for one-sized-fits-all solutions.

This line I quoted from you reveals your thinking. You expect US Healthcare to be solved by Washington? Never going to happen and for good reason; because we are 50 States. They may lay some foundation and put up some scaffolding, but it will be the States that do it, especially if funding for it comes in the form of block grants to States (like Medicaid) rather than a centralized-system.

[globenstine]

if the US didn't spend so much of its time and money being the worlds police, half of these countries wouldn't exist to bash and complain about us. you would be living in mud huts with the rag heads, speaking russian or speaking german. go ahead, explain why we have to come to your rescue all the damn time if your so much better than the US.

[Dastreus]

I'll tell you the real reason we're a second world nation... oligarchy.

[Damajin]

I'd like to see how much social services the rest of the world would be able to provide for their citizens if the US wasn't paying for their protection.

[Shakadam]

Exactly. The problem is access. It's very unequal in America. if you can get it, it's amazing. 15% of Americans cant't.

Massachusetts or Denmark is a great counter-example to America as a whole. THis is the state of Massachusetts.



Massachusetts is 10,500 square miles (Denmark is 16,000). It has one major city (Boston, in the east) and two minor cities (Worcester, in the middle of the state and Springfield). If I live in Springfield and get sick, I can easily drive to Boston on 90 west. It's about 90 minutes away. This gives me tremendous access to world leading Healthcare, that my insurance will cover, because that's what State law requires. To treat all of Massachusetts, we need world leading hospitals in one hub, for all 6.7 million residents within 10,500 square miles.

Now let's look at Texas.


268,597 square miles. Twenty five times that of Massachusetts. Population of 27 million. That means it's far less dense and just looking at the map you can see that people have to travel far greater distances to get to major cities, and those cities have and uneven quality of healthcare providers. Massachusetts gets by with one hub because it's a 90 minute drive between the most distant densely population regions. Texas needs more than it has for 7-10 hour drives. Way more.


In a sense it's kind of like internet. Many American cities have really, really good internet. Mine in Massachusetts is Comcast cable at 180 Mb/s down. I can get fiber if I wanted to. How much better is many Europeans? Can you beat 180 Mb/s down for cable? But I live in a rich, densely packed region. People two hours north in the woods. will be lucky to get 10 Mb/s.

Scale and inequities is the heart of the problem. Both are fixable through better policy and efficiencies. But neither are trivial.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is but I can't see how you can bring up scale as an issue when so many thing can be implemented on a state level in the USA.

Texas is far less dense? Ok, but it's still a lot denser than Finland, Sweden, or Norway.
Texas is 268,581 square miles with a population of 27,862,596 people and population density of 103.7/square mile.
Finland is 130,666 square miles (so half the size) with a population of 5,488,543 people and population density of 41.4/square mile.

So by that metric shouldn't Finland be considerably worse off? Since it'll take more resources to cover a less dense population?

It's interesting that you bring up internet as well. My parents live in a tiny (couple of hundred people) spread out village several km's away from the nearest tiny town (~7k people) and ~80km away from the nearest larger city (~70k people). They still have a 100/100 Mb/s fibre internet connection, and that's not as unusual around here as it may sound.

[pizz]

I live in New York City. The largest city of cultural population on the planet. The state takes care of it's own business. The only thing Washington DC provides us, is funds for X amount of programs. But it's up to the 50 states to handle it's programs. I live in the largest pop per square mile in the world of people. We all have access to the best hospitals via insurance OR NOT. yes, you can walk INTO ANY HOSPITAL regardless of income to be treated, and they have to treat you like you have insurance. Now this is our state law. As you can see, the term "US" is a very fickle statement. Because sadly we have 50 different states, with 50 different issues/greatness/suckness/. If you pool New Yorkers, living in the city. They will come up with, working poor. Rents going higher, taxes could be lower. But nothing states you can't make money here. You can make a fortune on any idea, or creation. As if you move to say North Dakota. Which is a very impoverished state, that has low income per capita and generally not fun to live there.

it's a weird system inplace, but it's our state officials and local officials, that have more impact on the social / spending / education - than what washington states. Sire we have a orange spray tan teenager as president. But he has very little say on how local gov't runs in the US.

[Sharein]

US is more interested in waging wars, than providing for its own people. I mean a 500-600-700Bl military budget while there are kids that can't afford college.
Who is to blame other than the voters?

And they have the infamous rustbelt ruins! Modern day survivaling in a post-apocalyptic world!

[Zan15]

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/current_spending

The US spends just under $1 trillion on education. It spends more on education than defense, which totals $834 billion, keeping in mind, with about $200 billion of that being the Department of Veterans Affairs (aka Veterans healthcare).

You will note we spend $1.5 trillion on Health Care (outside of the VA) and $1.5 trillion n Pensions.

Oh that's right... because as a Federal state, the US has Federal, State and Local taxation, and Federal, state and local budget, and Education, as you can see by the chart, is almost entirely a State and Local affair.

Just like infrastructure (Transportation).

All in all




The US provides an enormous amount for it's people. In fact, actual military matters, about $600 billion, constitutes 8.5% of all government spending. And the actual 'war" budget, the Oversease Contingency Operations Budget, comes in at $58.8 billion, or 0.84% of government spending.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R44519.pdf




But you know all this, Putinista, because we've had this conversation 37 times.

Nice now take out non discretionary spending like social security and Medicare...which is paying people what they invested....add in the off military spending that is not included like the cia...homeland security...2 wars that were founded separated for 2 trillion...800 million a year interest in debt from military spending...etc etc etc. Very easy to get to around 1.3 trillion a year and about 25% of the actual budget.