On the lighter side - You are moving ! [Archive]

Camelopard

24th May 2009, 07:05

As I already live in God's Own Country there isn't anywhere else I could go and keep or improve my standard of living. :)

But in the spirit of things I'll go along and say western Canada and NZ. The east part of Canada is way too cold for me!

As usual there are far too many variables, for purely laissez faire reasons where anything goes financially I'd move to Shanghai make sh*t loads of money and get out, for a lifestyle choice the next one would be somewhere like Mauritius.

To be quite honest I've visited over 80 countries and have yet to find one where I'd rather live than Australia.

Hawkmoon

24th May 2009, 10:07

Iraq and Afghanistan.

Seriously. I like to live on the edge.

BDunnell

24th May 2009, 10:17

France and Germany. I speak the language of one well and would probably be able to re-learn the other. This is a big consideration for me. There are others, though, were I feeling more adventurous.

JSH

24th May 2009, 11:40

I was born in Aus, lived the last six years in the USA and am now in Germany...

- A recent trip confirmed, we want to be back in Australia. Hopefully by the time we get back, there will still be some water there.

Sleeper

24th May 2009, 11:51

New Zealand and Japan.

Roamy

24th May 2009, 15:45

Colombia and Italy
i think colombia will soon handle the drug problem and they have some of the ultimate property to develop.
Italy just has the best of the best in about all categories.

Drew

24th May 2009, 15:48

That's a really tough question. I think maybe Spain and Luxembourg :) Two just isn't enough choice :p :

Wade91

24th May 2009, 15:56

Canada and Australia

Mark

24th May 2009, 17:02

France would be my choice. I only have a notion of French but I am sure I could pick it up.

steve_spackman

24th May 2009, 20:57

New Zealand and the Falkland Islands

Rollo

24th May 2009, 21:26

You have just been notified that you must leave your country. You will maintain your standard of living or better it.

It terms of standard of living there are only three countries better than Australia:

http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDI_2008_EN_Tables.pdf
1. Iceland 0.968
2. Norway 0.968
3. Canada 0.967
4. Australia 0.965

You get to visit two countries and then must make a choice.
Which two will you visit?

I'll visit, Iceland and Norway and then choose Canada on the basis that I can already speak the language and that a visa should be relatively easy to acquire. Neither Iceland or Norway are part of the EU, and therefore the freedom of employment regulations of the EU don't apply to them.

Jag_Warrior

24th May 2009, 22:01

I'd visit Switzerland and Monaco. Since you said I could maintain my standard of living (or better it), I assume you meant in relative terms. I'd probably go with Monaco, since I believe the climate would better suit me as I aged. And if, in relative terms, I could just be average or middle class there, I'd be happier than a pig in slop!

Speaking of Monaco, was that Charlotte Casiraghi (Princess Caroline's daughter) on the podium today, next to Prince Albert? Must be something good in the water there. Wow!

anthonyvop

24th May 2009, 23:12

BDunnell

24th May 2009, 23:18

There is no place on this planet where i could improve my standard of living just by moving there.

Europe, Australia, Canada and Japan has the infrastructure and amenities but lack the freedom and liberty. The rest are the reverse.

Yes, I feel horribly oppressed by living in Europe. In fact I am struggling to type, owing to the shackles that the state has placed on me. And the Government won't even allow me to read the South Florida Motorsports Report.

anthonyvop

24th May 2009, 23:27

Yes, I feel horribly oppressed by living in Europe. In fact I am struggling to type, owing to the shackles that the state has placed on me. And the Government won't even allow me to read the South Florida Motorsports Report.

To each his own.

For some, Freedom of Speech and freedom to protect themselves is of paramount importance.
For others not offending others and relying on the Government to take care of them is more important.

BDunnell

24th May 2009, 23:37

To each his own.

For some, Freedom of Speech and freedom to protect themselves is of paramount importance.
For others not offending others and relying on the Government to take care of them is more important.

The last time I looked, I have never been stopped from saying anything as a result of restrictions placed on my freedom of speech, but given that you equate living under any government that's not positioned somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan with dangerous revolutionary socialism, your views come as absolutely no surprise.

Jag_Warrior

24th May 2009, 23:52

There is no place on this planet where i could improve my standard of living just by moving there.

I took his scenario in the same way that one of my former companies would structure transfers: your pay and beneifts were adjusted so that your standard of living would not decrease. The increase (or decrease) in earnings and benefits allowed you to maintain your current SoL.

There are other things that figure into standards of living, but I'm not aware that too many people are boarding rafts to get out of the prinicpality.

I'll keep my house here. Whenever I'm in the mood to clack off a few rounds, I'll hitch a ride on my neighbor's G5 and come back for a visit. :s mokin:

This sure beats the job and relo offer I received from a company in Bumfu##, Alabama (where women are scarce and sheep are scared). Can ya make it happen, Fousto?!

J4MIE

24th May 2009, 23:52

Canada and Italy :up:

anthonyvop

24th May 2009, 23:53

The last time I looked, I have never been stopped from saying anything as a result of restrictions placed on my freedom of speech, but given that you equate living under any government that's not positioned somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan with dangerous revolutionary socialism, your views come as absolutely no surprise.
Freedom of speech is not to defend the rights of those who espouse popular views.
Freedom of speech is for those who espouse the unpopular.

While I abhor the Nazis and many other groups they should have the right to speak.

Freedom of expression is granted by Article 5 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany....But Apparently as long as you don't dig up sore spots.
Including:

Hate speech may be punishable if against segments of the population and in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace (Section 130 [Agitation of the People]), including racist agitation and antisemitism.

Disparagement of the Federal President (Section 90).

Disparagement of the State and its Symbols (Section 90a).

Insult to Organs and Representatives of Foreign States (Section 103).

Insulting of Faiths, Religious Societies and Organizations Dedicated to a Philosophy of Life if they could disturb public peace (Section 166)

BDunnell

24th May 2009, 23:56

steve_spackman

25th May 2009, 00:11

Europe, Australia, Canada and Japan has the infrastructure and amenities but lack the freedom and liberty.

Where in gods name did you hear that pile of rubbish??? I cannot believe you typed that. Seriously i would like to know who told you?

Rollo

25th May 2009, 00:22

Europe, Australia, Canada and Japan has the infrastructure and amenities but lack the freedom and liberty. The rest are the reverse.

According to whom? And on what basis?

The Economist pulished an Index of Democracy in 2008.

http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/25828/20081021185552/graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy%20Index%202008.pdf

1. Sweden 9.88
2. Norway 9.68
3. Iceland 9.65

10. Australia 9.09
11. Canada 9.07

17. Japan 8.25
18. United States 8.22

Mr Vop's comments can not be substantiated with any reasonable commentary or evidence I've found.

anthonyvop

25th May 2009, 00:36

According to whom? And on what basis?

The Economist pulished an Index of Democracy in 2008.

http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/25828/20081021185552/graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy%20Index%202008.pdf

1. Sweden 9.88
2. Norway 9.68
3. Iceland 9.65

10. Australia 9.09
11. Canada 9.07

17. Japan 8.25
18. United States 8.22

Mr Vop's comments can not be substantiated with any reasonable commentary or evidence I've found.

The economist's view on what is important in a "Democracy" and what is my view are vastly different.

BDunnell

25th May 2009, 00:37

Mr Vop's comments can not be substantiated with any reasonable commentary or evidence I've found.

I think the mods should impose that upon him as his new signature.

anthonyvop

25th May 2009, 00:38

As it happens, I do not think there is any need for such laws as those you mention as a result of your vast knowledge of the German constitution resulting from a Google search. I would also add that I consider it very unlikely that any of these laws affect the lives of the German people (of whom I am not one, if you recall) in any way; nor, indeed, would I imagine that they are ever deemed to have been breached all that often.
Tell that to this guy.

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/12/40669

Personally I think this guy is an idiot but I also believe he has the right to let the world know he is an idiot.

BDunnell

25th May 2009, 00:39

The economist's view on what is important in a "Democracy" and what is my view are vastly different.

Yes, I agree. Theirs are well-argued and based on detailed research.

BDunnell

25th May 2009, 00:41

Tell that to this guy.

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/12/40669

Personally I think this guy is an idiot but I also believe he has the right to let the world know he is an idiot.

You are great with that old Google, aren't you?

By the way, with regard to the link Rollo posted above, it took 14 minutes between him doing so and you offering your considered view on it. That's very impressive speed-reading and speed opinion-forming. I wish I had that gift.

anthonyvop

25th May 2009, 00:46

Where in gods name did you hear that pile of rubbish??? I cannot believe you typed that. Seriously i would like to know who told you?

As i have stated many times already. What is freedom and liberty for you is different for me.

I hold freedom of speech sacrosanct. Most European Countries don't.
I despise Socialism...in particular Socialized Medicine.
I believe in Capitalism.
I also do not trust any Government that doesn't trust me with a firearm.

Too each his own.

anthonyvop

25th May 2009, 00:47

You are great with that old Google, aren't you?

By the way, with regard to the link Rollo posted above, it took 14 minutes between him doing so and you offering your considered view on it. That's very impressive speed-reading and speed opinion-forming. I wish I had that gift.
I had read the Economist list before.
If you read the methodlogy you will find it very flawed.

Mark in Oshawa

25th May 2009, 13:42

Wow...It pains me that I would have to move with all you guys picking Canada! First off Camel, you say the West is warmer than the EAST? BS, unless you talking just the lower mainland of BC or Vancouver Island. Alberta for the most part is COLDER than the east, and our summers are warmer than all of western Canada. There...that myth dispelled.

Now...where would I go? Well Hawaii was paradise for me when I was there or Vegas, so Either would be a choice. The second choice? VERY difficult to say. I am thinking Australia or New Zealand, but I would have to visit down under to make that choice.

Europe has issues for me outside of language that would likely grate on me. While not that rugged individual freedoms guy like Anthony or Fousto, I think the bureaucracy and culture of Europe might make me nuts, although I must admit Ireland would be my only choice if I went over there.

No...I am thinking New Zealand or Australia would be my other choice other than Vegas or Hawaii as my first destinations. Climatic considerations are big for us Canadians as we get older and get more fed up with winter, which as a kid something I cherished about my home. Now as an adult, Ice I only want to see in my drink or at the rink!!!

GridGirl

25th May 2009, 14:01

I suppose I'd quite like to go somewhere like Hong Kong or Dubai if I were to maintain or better my standard of living. Other locations mentioned such as Austrailia and New Zealand would not be that far away in relative terms compared to thier distance from the UK.

Ideally I would move to improve the lives of others rather than myself. However, I don't think I would have the guts to leave my life, friends, family and career to go off do something completely different like teaching kids in Sudan for example.

schmenke

25th May 2009, 14:29

Ah yes, living without the freedom to own a Glock 9mm is simply intolerable over here... :mark:

Australia and France (particularily the south) for me :)

Storm

25th May 2009, 14:41

As I already live in God's Own Country there isn't anywhere else I could go and keep or improve my standard of living. :)

Isn't that supposed to be Kerala tourism's motto :p :

anyways I would choose the UK and Spain...Italy lost out by a whisker and all those Roma fans.

I speak both the languages (one better than the other admittedly).
Plus I have always liked most things British (except their bloody rule over my country :p : , even the food!). Spain is easy - for Barça ;)

Donney

25th May 2009, 17:26

I would choose the USA and the UK.

Eki

25th May 2009, 18:09

The economist's view on what is important in a "Democracy" and what is my view are vastly different.
Anthonyvop's idea of freedom and democracy is the opportunity to buy all the weapons, ammo and alcohol you want from a drive in store and use them all before you get back home.

Hondo

25th May 2009, 18:36

Ah yes, living without the freedom to own a Glock 9mm is simply intolerable over here... :mark:

Australia and France (particularily the south) for me :)

Woman's gun.

Hondo

25th May 2009, 18:52

The USA is so vast and diverse in it's regions that I don't believe I'd want to live in another country. I can find what interests me here. I'd love to carry my Harley over and tour Italy for about a month and then do some cruising around the continent and the Uk. I think it would be fun to meet a lot of the folks on this forum.

Other than that, I'd choose a 45'-55' sailboat, set up for single handing, based in the Virgin Islands. I'd enjoy that until I saw that first wave, almost as high as my main mast, bearing down on me.

Jag_Warrior

25th May 2009, 19:32

Woman's gun.

Bought my mom a Glock 19 for her birthday.

Magnus

25th May 2009, 20:43

As i have stated many times already. What is freedom and liberty for you is different for me.

I hold freedom of speech sacrosanct. Most European Countries don't.
I despise Socialism...in particular Socialized Medicine.
I believe in Capitalism.
I also do not trust any Government that doesn't trust me with a firearm.

Too each his own.

You are really a breath of fresh air! many americans do ot have a clue about the european countries, and their different politics. I am very glad that at least one american on this forum has a deeper insight, and apparantly also have visited Europe to get a first hand view!
Keep it up anthonyvop! The fact that the US government has tried to silence even swedish websites is ofcourse irrelevant in this discussion ;)

anthonyvop

25th May 2009, 21:26

Keep it up anthonyvop! The fact that the US government has tried to silence even swedish websites is ofcourse irrelevant in this discussion ;)

Which website is that?

anthonyvop

25th May 2009, 21:27

Woman's gun.

And Europeans.

anthonyvop

25th May 2009, 21:43

Anthonyvop's idea of freedom and democracy is the opportunity to buy all the weapons, ammo and alcohol you want from a drive in store and use them all before you get back home.

Does that scare you?

Mark in Oshawa

25th May 2009, 22:06

Anthony, unless you have been to Canada or Europe and actually found out how things work, don't be so sure you have the answers, any more than the Euro types on here know jack about the US of A.

Socialist Medicine as you hate so much is pretty much the reality everywhere BUT the US, and while I can criticize its faults fully living where I do, I can also tell you where it works on what level, and I am sure you have to also admit that there are some in the US who cant afford to be sick and lose everything through health issues. As for Freedom of Speech, I am 100% on your side of things, but the last time I looked, no thought police over here have killed free speech either.

IN short, most of the countries you are knocking you have no personal level or experience with just as most of your critics haven't lived in the US. I grew up in Canada and live here, but I spend 5 out of 7 days a week in the US so it isn't like I cant debate the merits of both nations. We both live in great countries, and I am sure there is quite a bit right about how Europeans live. What we really are digging at often is semantics and extreme issues. The day to day existence of any of these nations isn't really that different. Your adaptation of the Rush Limbaugh view of things is nice, but doesn't hold water on a lot of levels.

Camelopard

25th May 2009, 23:35

First off Camel, you say the West is warmer than the EAST? BS, unless you talking just the lower mainland of BC or Vancouver Island.

I should have clarified, of course I mean lower BC.

Mark in Oshawa

25th May 2009, 23:54

Camel, we barely accept those wimps as CANADIANS..lol.

Winter really isnt THAT bad if you have dry cold days after a snow where you can get out and ski, or snowmobile, ice fish, ice race (the only racing I could afford) or just enjoy nature in that enviroment. Yes, in the end it is a bit much, but likely no more annoying to put up with in many ways than the brutal droughts and heat waves you get in OZ.

Camelopard

25th May 2009, 23:59

Actually I must admit that I would swap the rain for some all out snow as long as I had a good pair of long johns on!

Although I'm sure that SWMBO'd would only live in Vancouver! and I'll tell her about the comment on barely accepting those wimps as Canadians!

I do want to get over East, so many places to go, so little time!

anthonyvop

26th May 2009, 00:31

Mark in Oshawa

26th May 2009, 01:16

Mark,

I have lived in Europe and still spend quite a bit of time there.

Socialized medicine does not work, Never has. Never will. Socialized medicine is anti-democratic.
How dare anyone tell me which doctor I want to see or if a procedure is worth the cost?

BTW.
Healthcare is NOT A RIGHT.

I agree with you, but if I am hit by a car tomorrow and incapacitated for life in a wheel chair, I know I wont have to fight with my insurance company to decide who pays.

I am not told what doc to see. I have no say in the cost. I agree with you that socialized medicine isn't the be all and end all, but we are not using leeches and mercury to cure ailments up here either.

Big pharma influences a lot of what is happening in medicine these days, as is the malpractice ambulance chasers in the US. WE could have a really long conversation on this one trust me...I am not going to say you are all wrong...but it aint all bad either.

anthonyvop

26th May 2009, 02:50

I am not going to say you are all wrong...but it aint all bad either.

Which is my point.

What is important for me may not be important for others.

Mark in Oshawa

26th May 2009, 05:06

We have established you have a different take than most of us Anthony, even some like me who vote right of center.

Roamy

26th May 2009, 06:58

i am for getting rid of ridicules awards for malpractice. Matter of fact I would restructure the insurance. Drs pay upwards of 50k per year just for insurance.

Jag_Warrior

26th May 2009, 07:24

i am for getting rid of ridicules awards for malpractice. Matter of fact I would restructure the insurance. Drs pay upwards of 50k per year just for insurance.

Yeah, yeah... sick people, dead people, doctors and lawyers - gotcha. What about what's important? When does my new employment contract arrive, Fousto?! The passport is on my desk. I've been expecting some 1st class airline tickets and a PM from you. What's the hold up? OK, maybe I went for too much. Tell ya what... I'll settle for being lower middle class (in Monaco terms). So instead of the Bentley GT, I'll settle for the Jag XKR. Is that better? Deal? :wave:

Mark in Oshawa

26th May 2009, 12:40

i am for getting rid of ridicules awards for malpractice. Matter of fact I would restructure the insurance. Drs pay upwards of 50k per year just for insurance.

Fousto...they pay that because idiot juries in your country keep giving the "injured" party (often trumped up by a lawyer looking for a fat fee) large sums of dough any time a doctor "misses" some ailment they should have seen first. Of course, no one accusing the doctor of this has ever seen the inside of a medical school. There is a reason doctors "practice" medicine. IT is not an exact science, especially when new and weird ailments come up.

IT is also why when you have one complaint, they run 14 tests that cost a ton of dough, driving up the cost of health care. Doctors don't want to have to testify they didn't run every test possible if a malpractice claim is made against them. THAT too has driven the costs of health care through the roof.

Malpractice suits are mainly an American disease, but their repecussions have spread around the world.....

Roamy

26th May 2009, 15:32

Jag go ahead and take Villeneuve's old flat in Monaco. He moved back to Montreal and is trying to get a drive in crashcar.

donKey jote

26th May 2009, 18:40

How dare anyone tell me which doctor I want to see or if a procedure is worth the cost?

:laugh:

you obviously haven't been to any doctors in Germany :dozey

Glen 320

26th May 2009, 19:09

USA probably New Hampshire or Australia not sure which part 'cos i haven't been there, yet!

steve_spackman

26th May 2009, 20:26

Anthonyvop's idea of freedom and democracy is the opportunity to buy all the weapons, ammo and alcohol you want from a drive in store and use them all before you get back home.

Yes alot of people in the US are more worried about owning a gun and are less worried about health and education...

BDunnell

26th May 2009, 20:28

Yes alot of people in the US are more worried about owning a gun and are less worried about health and education...

The lack of interest in the latter being painfully obvious in some cases.

steve_spackman

26th May 2009, 20:31

Socialized medicine does not work, Never has. Never will. Socialized medicine is anti-democratic

BTW.
Healthcare is NOT A RIGHT.

How is Socialised medicine is anti-democratic??

Healthcare is not a right??

i have met ALOT of Americans whom think differently...

steve_spackman

26th May 2009, 20:34

The economist's view on what is important in a "Democracy" and what is my view are vastly different.

Whats your version of democracy?

BDunnell

26th May 2009, 21:15

Whats your version of democracy?

Guns, it seems.

Eki

26th May 2009, 21:56

How dare anyone tell me which doctor I want to see or if a procedure is worth the cost?

Here you can have it both ways. If you pay enough, you can get any doctor or procedure you want. If you pay just the basic fee, a doctor is appointed for you and they decide what treatment is best for you (you don't have to accept that treatment of course, but go untreated if you want instead).

Eki

26th May 2009, 22:02

The fact that the US government has tried to silence even swedish websites is ofcourse irrelevant in this discussion ;)
Or that they have tried to dictate what a Finnish company can and cannot manufacture and sell and to whom (the US and the CIA tried to stop a Finnish company from selling civilian deep sea submarines to the Soviet Union, because they feared that the SU might use them for military purposes) . Is that your idea of free market capitalism, anthonyvop?

steve_spackman

26th May 2009, 22:37

Guns, it seems.

Certain people in the US seem to have a different view than in other parts of the world as to what democracy means. The problem we have here is that the US is a republic. But then also there is another issue... Not alot of Americans know that the US is a republic.

So when Mr Bush said that he wants to spread democracy throughout the middle east, i was kinda thrown of course by such a bizzare statement

Contrary to what so many said, including Al Gore, who claimed that "What is at stake here is the integrity of our democracy, making sure that the will of the people is expressed," -- America is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic, a system where the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law and citizens elect representatives to government.

By definition, a republic is a political unit governed by a charter, while a democracy is a government whose prevailing force is always that of the majority. Perhaps one of the difficulties in defining these two words, namely democracy and republic, stems from the fact that many consider them synonyms, which they aren’t. They are no more alike than an apple and a banana, and yet they are often used interchangeably.

The United States of America is sometimes described as "the epitome of a free society". But when you can be jailed for years for smoking a joint (or snorting a line of coke) in the privacy of your own home, when you can be denied boarding on a domestic flight because you are on some "homeland security" watch list, when your house can be stolen from you by the government because your son stashed a baggie in the attic, when you can be declared to be a "terrorist" and locked up because you took part in a non-violent anti-government demonstration, when the mere possession of a "controlled substance" (whether or not planted on you by crooked police) is enough to ruin your life and the lives of your family, when the police can search your home without a warrant and without informing you, then it is ridiculous to claim that the U.S. is a free society. It is more accurately described as a crypto-fascist state — meaning that it's a fascist state but that this is carefully hidden from most people (more easily done if most people do not want to know); no jackbooted torchlight parades, just the complete dominance of state power over civil liberties and the natural rights of citizens.

steve_spackman

26th May 2009, 22:54

[quote="steve_spackman"]Certain people in the US seem to have a different view than in other parts of the world as to what democracy means. The problem we have here is that the US is a republic. But then also there is another issue... Not alot of Americans know that the US is a republic.

So when Mr Bush said that he wants to spread democracy throughout the middle east, i was kinda thrown of course by such a bizzare statement

Contrary to what so many said, including Al Gore, who claimed that "What is at stake here is the integrity of our democracy, making sure that the will of the people is expressed," -- America is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic, a system where the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law and citizens elect representatives to government.

By definition, a republic is a political unit governed by a charter, while a democracy is a government whose prevailing force is always that of the majority. Perhaps one of the difficulties in defining these two words, namely democracy and republic, stems from the fact that many consider them synonyms, which they aren’t. They are no more alike than an apple and a banana, and yet they are often used interchangeably.

The United States of America is sometimes described as "the epitome of a free society". But when you can be jailed for years for smoking a joint (or snorting a line of coke) in the privacy of your own home, when you can be denied boarding on a domestic flight because you are on some "homeland security" watch list, when your house can be stolen from you by the government because your son stashed a baggie in the attic, when you can be declared to be a "terrorist" and locked up because you took part in a non-violent anti-government demonstration, when the mere possession of a "controlled substance" (whether or not planted on you by crooked police) is enough to ruin your life and the lives of your family, when the police can search your home without a warrant and without informing you, then it is ridiculous to claim that the U.S. is a free society. It is more accurately described as a crypto-fascist state — meaning that it's a fascist state but that this is carefully hidden from most people (more easily done if most people do not want to know); no jackbooted torchlight parades, just the complete dominance of state power over civil liberties and the natural rights of citizens.

http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill.html

steve_spackman

26th May 2009, 22:56

Certain people in the US seem to have a different view than in other parts of the world as to what democracy means. The problem we have here is that the US is a republic. But then also there is another issue... Not alot of Americans know that the US is a republic.

So when Mr Bush said that he wants to spread democracy throughout the middle east, i was kinda thrown of course by such a bizzare statement

Contrary to what so many said, including Al Gore, who claimed that "What is at stake here is the integrity of our democracy, making sure that the will of the people is expressed," -- America is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic, a system where the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law and citizens elect representatives to government.

By definition, a republic is a political unit governed by a charter, while a democracy is a government whose prevailing force is always that of the majority. Perhaps one of the difficulties in defining these two words, namely democracy and republic, stems from the fact that many consider them synonyms, which they aren’t. They are no more alike than an apple and a banana, and yet they are often used interchangeably.

The United States of America is sometimes described as "the epitome of a free society". But when you can be jailed for years for smoking a joint (or snorting a line of coke) in the privacy of your own home, when you can be denied boarding on a domestic flight because you are on some "homeland security" watch list, when your house can be stolen from you by the government because your son stashed a baggie in the attic, when you can be declared to be a "terrorist" and locked up because you took part in a non-violent anti-government demonstration, when the mere possession of a "controlled substance" (whether or not planted on you by crooked police) is enough to ruin your life and the lives of your family, when the police can search your home without a warrant and without informing you, then it is ridiculous to claim that the U.S. is a free society. It is more accurately described as a crypto-fascist state — meaning that it's a fascist state but that this is carefully hidden from most people (more easily done if most people do not want to know); no jackbooted torchlight parades, just the complete dominance of state power over civil liberties and the natural rights of citizens.

http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill.html

Camelopard

27th May 2009, 02:02

Here you can have it both ways. If you pay enough, you can get any doctor or procedure you want. If you pay just the basic fee, a doctor is appointed for you and they decide what treatment is best for you (you don't have to accept that treatment of course, but go untreated if you want instead).

Pretty much the same here in Australia, no one forces you to pay private health insurance, although medicare (public) is paid for by tax contributions.

Mark

27th May 2009, 09:07

Same as the UK of course. You are perfectly free to get private treatment, although the NHS provides most things funded from taxes if you don't want to go private.

I think the main difference with other countries is that our NHS isn't just a basic service for those who can't afford more, it's supposed to be all encompasing.

I'd be interested to hear how many patients get treated privately vs those on the NHS. I'd be surprised if private treatments amounted to more than 1%

Eki

27th May 2009, 15:47

I think the main difference with other countries is that our NHS isn't just a basic service for those who can't afford more, it's supposed to be all encompasing.

Same here, but getting an operation or an appointment with a doctor may take longer in the public service than in the private service if it's not urgent. And they don't make plastic surgery for vanity reasons in the public service.

Hondo

27th May 2009, 16:05

There are large numbers of Americans (I'll try to find the supporting articles again) that lack health insurance only because they don't want to pay for it. They can afford it but would rather afford toys and lifestyles. From another perspective, if, in the USA, you can afford to buy a pack of cigarettes a day, you could afford some decent health insurance. Many of those that push for government health care do so without thinking about the tax increases that will pay for that insurance. Any way you choose to go, your good time money is going to take a hit. In addition, the majority of affordable insurance plans have some sort of deductible that you have to pay before the insurance kicks in and a cap, frequently 80%, where the insurance stops. So even with insurance, with a big enough problem, it is still possible to be financially wiped out.

N. Jones

28th May 2009, 00:31

I know I'm late to the party but, without thinking about the two countries I would choose are Canada and Australia. Then I'd pick the best of the two and go.

Rollo

28th May 2009, 01:20

There are large numbers of Americans (I'll try to find the supporting articles again) that lack health insurance only because they don't want to pay for it. They can afford it but would rather afford toys and lifestyles.

Can they?
http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf
In 2007, 24.5 percent of people in households with annual incomes of less than $25,000 had no health insurance coverage.
Uninsured rates decreased for each consecutive household income group to 21.1 percent for households with incomes of $25,000 to $49,999, 14.5 percent for households with incomes of $50,000 to $74,999, and 7.8 percent for households with incomes of $75,000 or more.
- p23

Statistically, the poorer you are, the more likely you are to be uninsured. It also follows that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to have less than brilliant coverage.

Your point is of course valid to some degree, but it's pretty obvious that if you have less money, then you can only afford to buy less stuff. When healthcare in the United States is the most expensive in the OECD, is it little wonder that there's a correlation between poverty and being uninsured?

Rollo

28th May 2009, 01:22

The votes so far are:
7 Australia
4 Canada
4 New Zealand
4 USA
3 France
2 Italy
2 Spain
2 UK
1 Belguim
1 Germany
1 Japan
1 Colombia
1 Luxembourg
1 Falkland Islands
1 Switzerland
1 Monaco
1 Hong Kong
1 Dubai

And lots of countries on nul point

Hondo

28th May 2009, 01:51

Can they?
http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf
In 2007, 24.5 percent of people in households with annual incomes of less than $25,000 had no health insurance coverage.
Uninsured rates decreased for each consecutive household income group to 21.1 percent for households with incomes of $25,000 to $49,999, 14.5 percent for households with incomes of $50,000 to $74,999, and 7.8 percent for households with incomes of $75,000 or more.
- p23

Statistically, the poorer you are, the more likely you are to be uninsured. It also follows that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to have less than brilliant coverage.

Your point is of course valid to some degree, but it's pretty obvious that if you have less money, then you can only afford to buy less stuff. When healthcare in the United States is the most expensive in the OECD, is it little wonder that there's a correlation between poverty and being uninsured?

Funny how the poor manage to buy cigarettes, beer, wine, narcotics, and cell phones.

I never said everyone can afford insurance, I said there are many that don't have it because they don't want to pay for it.

Hondo

28th May 2009, 02:00

Statistically, the poorer you are, the more likely you are to be uninsured. It also follows that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to have less than brilliant coverage.

Oddly enough, the poorer you are, the more likely you are to be addicted to tobacco and a heavy consumer of beer. So two of the government's favorite items to tax in the name of helping the poor, like funding healthcare, actually hurt the poor the worst.

Mark in Oshawa

29th May 2009, 04:55

Healthcare isn't private choice in Canada, unless you are a rich guy or powerful politician in Quebec who used to be a PM who decried the use of private clinics while going to one. We have no choice and THAT is what bothers me. I think the ideal comprimise ( making no one happy but probably the only solution) is to have a private/public split of some sort. See, Since I, with the other Canadians on here have only dealt with a public healthcare system with no private alternative; so we cannot judge private healthcare in the same way someone like Fiero can in the USA.

The issue I have always had is the public system in Canada up until about 2 decades ago kept pace and did a pretty decent job. Now with costs in health care skyrocketing, it is a system rife with duplicity, costs out of control, and public sector unions raping the system for their cut. It is in short, a mess. It was a noble idea in theory, but like most socialistic ideas, rife with pitfalls. I still will always find it ironic only two other nations have cradle to grave health care for all the citizens, Cuba and North Korea. My god I don't like that comparsion......

Still think Canada isn't an all bad place for any of you to end up if you end up leaving your own turf eh?

Hondo

29th May 2009, 09:00

Fiero isn't the best choice for actual healthcare experience. Until last year, I hadn't been to a doctor since 1980 and that was for a work required physical examination. My outlook has always been, I'll get better or die. I have, when employed, normally carried the offered group insurance with a rather high deductible ($1500.00) to cover something like getting off the motorcycle while still proceeding forward in a brisk manner or the failure of the rider and motorcycle to come to a complete stop in unison. When the need arose last year to visit a doctor I picked one off the insurance list, called, and had an appointment the next morning. I saw the doctor at the appointed time and we talked and he ordered some blood tests. The next night at 9:00pm he called me about the thyroid and wanted to know where to call the perscription in to. Anyway, I haven't seen or had the need to see him again since Nov of 2008.

In other words, I'm not a real big healthcare consumer.

Mark

29th May 2009, 10:11

When the need arose last year to visit a doctor I picked one off the insurance list, called, and had an appointment the next morning. I saw the doctor at the appointed time and we talked and he ordered some blood tests. The next night at 9:00pm he called me about the thyroid and wanted to know where to call the perscription in to. Anyway, I haven't seen or had the need to see him again since Nov of 2008.

In other words, I'm not a real big healthcare consumer.

Now that's service.
In the UK it would go something like.
Call to get appointment at doctors. Which will be in 1 weeks time.
See the doctor and he refers you to a specialist at the hospital. Waiting time, 2 months. (Doctors never do anything except refer people, it seems!)
See the specialist who takes your history then sends you along the corridor to get a blood sample. Total waiting time in the hospital around 2 hours.
Wait 3 weeks to get the blood test results, and then another week to see the doctor about them and get a prescription.

Total time spent around 3 months.

Hondo

29th May 2009, 13:50

I have to admit I was completely surprised when the doctor called me at home at 9:00pm wanting me to start medication immediately. However, by then, the swelling all over had gotten so bad I couldn't lace my tennis shoes. In addition, since he figured my thyroid had quit 2 years previously, the hormone has to be reintroduced at very low doses to keep from shocking the body and killing you. It took a good month and a half before changes starting showing up. I was off work until late December. Thankfully, the company I worked for elected to keep paying me my full salary. They had no obligation to do so. Capitalism ain't all evil.

555-04Q2

29th May 2009, 14:47

I'd choose Croatia first then China.

Donney

29th May 2009, 15:37

schmenke

29th May 2009, 15:44

race aficionado

29th May 2009, 16:52

BTW.
Healthcare is NOT A RIGHT.

I know this is not the threads topic but I will respond to this before I share my country picks:
---------
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Article 25.
• (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
----------
that said, I would return to Colombia after visiting the "mother country" Spain.
Colombia is where I spent 29 years of my life and like fousto mentioned, things are getting better on the drug related violence and it is such a wonderful country with such wonderful people.

hey . . . and I speak the language.
:s mokin:

steve_spackman

29th May 2009, 16:53

A few years I was referred to a specialist by our family doctor. I had to wait 6 months to see him. Then another 3 month for a procedure. Total time from referal to procedure = 9 months!
I agree with Oshawa Mark, a semi-public, or "two-teir", system is the way to go.

Does Japan not have public health care as well?

It has both private and public..

Some countries who have a public health service do a great job..some do not. The same with private health services.

France also demonstrates that you can deliver stellar results with this mix of public and private financing. In a recent World Health Organisation health-care ranking, France came in first, while the U.S. scored 37th, slightly better than Cubahttp://www.answerbag.com/q_view/542769#.

The main reason why a public healthcare system will never work in the US, is because the amount of greedy selfish doctors who are in bed with the drug companies and HMOs.

The HMOs can deny people hospital treatment on the basis that they dont need the treatment..then they die. Just so they can make a profit, from the same people whom have been paying health insurance for their entire life.

yodasarmpit

29th May 2009, 18:34

Australia and Canada most likely.

Europe, Australia, Canada and Japan has the infrastructure and amenities but lack the freedom and liberty.
You should be a stand up comedian, specialising in irony. :)

Mark in Oshawa

30th May 2009, 14:15

It has both private and public..

Some countries who have a public health service do a great job..some do not. The same with private health services.

France also demonstrates that you can deliver stellar results with this mix of public and private financing. In a recent World Health Organisation health-care ranking, France came in first, while the U.S. scored 37th, slightly better than Cubahttp://www.answerbag.com/q_view/542769#.

The main reason why a public healthcare system will never work in the US, is because the amount of greedy selfish doctors who are in bed with the drug companies and HMOs.

The HMOs can deny people hospital treatment on the basis that they dont need the treatment..then they die. Just so they can make a profit, from the same people whom have been paying health insurance for their entire life.

Steve, I suspect the WHO does a lot of their grading on the idea of the most people covered under a health system. IN the US, as it has been pointed out, many CHOOSE to not have any coverage. Young, fit and maybe naive people refuse to buy health insurance. To the WHO, this would drive down the American ranking, but it actually means diddly.

When it comes to rankings, I would like to read the criteria. The US medical science community I don't think take a back seat to any nation in terms of research and pharmaceutical sciences. There is a lot NOT good about some aspects of the American system, mainly crooked critieria that HMO's use, and the callous operation of some of the big Pharma companies (VIOXX anyone?) but the US of A isn't the 3rd world when it comes to medical care.

anthonyvop

30th May 2009, 15:00

Australia and Canada most likely.

You should be a stand up comedian, specialising in irony. :)
With a response like that you should be a Knee-jerk Liberal.....Oh.....I see you are already there.

Mark in Oshawa

30th May 2009, 16:23

Anthony....not everyone in OZ or Canada is a kneejerk liberal, any more than everyone in Florida is a right wing reactionary armed to the teeth. Last time I looked, you still had your share of libreal weenies in that state.

Good lord...is there anyone in America who isn't a right wing reactionary nor a knee jerk leftie? I know there is, Chuck appears to be.....but man you sometimes floor me.

Drew

30th May 2009, 16:56

I'd choose Croatia first then China.

Strange choice 555, how come?

anthonyvop

30th May 2009, 17:06

Hondo

30th May 2009, 21:58

Good lord...is there anyone in America who isn't a right wing reactionary nor a knee jerk leftie? I know there is, Chuck appears to be.....but man you sometimes floor me.

Yeah, I don't consider myself either one. I say what I feel from what I consider a reasonably objective point of view. Many of my opinions and predictions are simply based on human nature and historically similar events.

Heres one for you:

The United States is now, and will remain by virtue of law, regulation, executive order, ammendment, and judicial interpretation, effectively a one party political system as far as the central, federal government goes. Beyond extremely extraordinary circumstances, it will remain a one party system until 2016 at the least.

Mark in Oshawa

10th June 2009, 18:48

Yeah, I don't consider myself either one. I say what I feel from what I consider a reasonably objective point of view. Many of my opinions and predictions are simply based on human nature and historically similar events.

Heres one for you:

The United States is now, and will remain by virtue of law, regulation, executive order, ammendment, and judicial interpretation, effectively a one party political system as far as the central, federal government goes. Beyond extremely extraordinary circumstances, it will remain a one party system until 2016 at the least.

I think there is some argument for your assertion, but I would humbly suggest not everyone in Congress has taken leave of their independence just quite yet. Just the way things are going, one party is going to call all the shots because they have enough votes, and not enough of their people are willing to use their vote in the manner it is intended. Welcome to what Canadian politics are like when one party wins a sizable majority.....

UltimateDanGTR

10th June 2009, 20:27

Roamy

10th June 2009, 22:41

Id go to Australia to watch some V8 supercars, then go live in America somewhere near a good speedway so I can watch lots of nascar. and enter the 24 hours of leMons. and visit NYC, Miami, LA, Vegas, Detroit, oh and Talladega! Actually I might aswell do a steven Fry and visit all of the united states states!

in a big campervan or something (saves me booking into a hotel-although a mustang would be nice)

Oh god, maybe I am a secret american?!?

could be worse - you could be a secret Finn.

Mark in Oshawa

11th June 2009, 00:01

Oh god, maybe I am a secret american?!?

It's alright....there are a few in Europe that are and haven't figured it out. Then there is Eki, who is a secret North Korean.....

rah

11th June 2009, 00:31

NZ or somewhere in the South Pacific, maybe Vanuatu or Tonga.

Hondo

11th June 2009, 01:50

Camelopard

11th June 2009, 02:57

Jag_Warrior

11th June 2009, 18:51

I'd choose Croatia first then China.

I think there's got to be a good story here. Come on, don't leave us hanging.

jso1985

11th June 2009, 19:57

Basically I take any country where a socialist monkey isn't in power!

But keeping on the idea of the topic, except for most African countries, theorically I could have a better standard of living in most countries rather than here in Bolivia.

Now when choosing, I'd pick Sweden, cause already been there and loved it! or England or USA, have seen and read so much about them that I'd actually like to see how is it really!

Mark in Oshawa

11th June 2009, 19:59

Basically I take any country where a socialist monkey isn't in power!

So when you leaving Bolivia?? Anyone who is a buddy of Chavez would qualify as a socialist monkey would he not?

Mark in Oshawa

11th June 2009, 20:01

The Economist Magazine has published it's yearly review of the best cities to live in.

I guess being able to carry a concealed weapon isn't high on the list of factors considered important for most people.

Vancouver (BC, not the one in Washington state) rates first followed by Vienna and them Melbourne,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/09/2592740.htm

Where did the first city in the US come?

I guess they didn't go downtown where the druggies are all getting their free needles and supervision to shoot heroin. Vancouver is a lovely place, but it would be a damn sight better if it wasn't run by loons...but alas, it seems that it is a west coast disease...

jso1985

11th June 2009, 20:11

So when you leaving Bolivia?? Anyone who is a buddy of Chavez would qualify as a socialist monkey would he not?

A monkey has more brains than Evo Morales, so basically you can't compare ;)

And sadly my country so screwed up that I'd rather live even in Peru now, and I never thought I would ever say such thing!

schmenke

11th June 2009, 20:14

I guess they didn't go downtown where the druggies are all getting their free needles and supervision to shoot heroin. Vancouver is a lovely place, but it would be a damn sight better if it wasn't run by loons...but alas, it seems that it is a west coast disease...

It's also ridiculously expensive :s

Mark in Oshawa

11th June 2009, 20:42

A monkey has more brains than Evo Morales, so basically you can't compare ;)

And sadly my country so screwed up that I'd rather live even in Peru now, and I never thought I would ever say such thing!

Well...that is the problem with Democracy. Sometimes the guy that gets elected is a loon...and you are more or less stuck with him because loons vote as well. I saw a program that showed Chile this AM, I think if I had to move to South America, Valparasio is a VERY nice looking city...

jso1985

11th June 2009, 21:00

Viña del Mar is even better!

In South America Chile and Uruguay are the places to live in(Southern Brazil too).
Venezuela was a nice combo if take count the women they have but now... errrr...

Mark in Oshawa

11th June 2009, 21:27

Viña del Mar is even better!

In South America Chile and Uruguay are the places to live in(Southern Brazil too).
Venezuela was a nice combo if take count the women they have but now... errrr...

Well I haven't seen pictures but I will look it up on your advice.

AS for Venezuela, the women are amazing to look at for sure, but after seeing the mess that Chavez is making, it may not be a place to go for YEARS after he is gone.

That is assuming he leaves after his term. Didn't he get the votes he wanted to be president for life?

jso1985

11th June 2009, 21:38

He can be re-elected any time now... and taking count non-existent and dead people are usually socialist, he will propably stay a long time in power...

Mark in Oshawa

11th June 2009, 21:49

He can be re-elected any time now... and taking count non-existent and dead people are usually socialist, he will propably stay a long time in power...

What I have never understood about people like Chavez and Castro, and maybe your President Morales is they condemn the US for its various faults, and see no irony in the fact they have made themselves self appointed leaders FOR LIFE because they of course, have all the answers and are NEVER wrong.

Say what you like about George W. Bush, he got elected for his two terms and he went quietly into the Texas night.....

jso1985

11th June 2009, 22:14

As the Costa Rica president said: it's easier to blame the US and beg for a miracle solution rather than sit and see how badly we screwed up by ourselves for 200 years ;)

Brown, Jon Brow

11th June 2009, 22:35

Wales or Scotland ;)

But if not in the UK then maybe Germany (because it is still in Europe) or Canada (because they still recognise the authority of the queen). If i went to America i'd probably have to avoid the deep south. Australia would be nice but it is too far away from home.

Camelopard

11th June 2009, 23:34

Basically I take any country where a socialist monkey isn't in power!......................................

Now when choosing, I'd pick Sweden, cause already been there and loved it!......................

Well that is a contradiction, Sweden is one of the most 'solialised' countries in europe, certainly one of the highest taxing.......

555-04Q2

12th June 2009, 10:56

I think there's got to be a good story here. Come on, don't leave us hanging.

Croatia for me is the most beautiful country in the world after South Africa, thats why its my first choice if I had to move. Go there if you can and see for yourself.

China is another country I love visiting. There are so many opportunities in China for business men like myself, so much history, culture, beautiful landscapes and buildings to see and explore. The only down side is the mass pollution in the major cities.

raybak

12th June 2009, 11:29

I'm staying put here in Australia. Living in Canberra we have the best of everything, low pollution, low crime and an easy drive to work. Also the rally stages are only 10 mins from home.

Also helps that we have more rally cars per capita than anywhere else in the world :)

Ray

A.F.F.

12th June 2009, 20:41

Also helps that we have more rally cars per capita than anywhere else in the world :)

Ray

Cookie :)

We on the other hand have more rally champions per capita than anywhere else in the world ;)

Daniel

12th June 2009, 21:49

Bwahahhahaahhahahaha that's hilarious......

Jag_Warrior

13th June 2009, 02:43

Croatia for me is the most beautiful country in the world after South Africa, thats why its my first choice if I had to move. Go there if you can and see for yourself.

China is another country I love visiting. There are so many opportunities in China for business men like myself, so much history, culture, beautiful landscapes and buildings to see and explore. The only down side is the mass pollution in the major cities.

Fair enough. My knowledge of Croatia is really nonexistent.

China, I had a chance to visit on business about seven years ago. I passed on that and tried to get in line for Brazil and didn't get to go to either.

Mark in Oshawa

13th June 2009, 16:33

As the Costa Rica president said: it's easier to blame the US and beg for a miracle solution rather than sit and see how badly we screwed up by ourselves for 200 years ;)

This is why Costa Rica is one of the few places in Central or South America that seems to have leaders based in reality. Never hear of anything silly in that part of the world.

God knows Latin America has had their issues with the USA, and the Yank's deserve some of the criticism, but in the end, the large majority of leaders in this part of the world have made a pretty big mess of their countries without American help.

Mark in Oshawa

13th June 2009, 16:36

...... or Canada (because they still recognise the authority of the queen). .

Give the fools in this country who decry any ties with the crown time, they are doing their best to make us a banana republic, but of course in the next breath they whine when we are too much like the Americans. I guess they haven't figured out the ole girl in Buckingham Palace is the greatest difference we have from our American cousins.

If i went to America i'd probably have to avoid the deep south. Australia would be nice but it is too far away from home.

You might like the deep south Jon, it isn't like what you may think it is.

I vote with you on Australia though.....

Fred Basset

13th June 2009, 16:45

USA and Canada

I already moved to my country of choice thats why i'm in the USA

jso1985

13th June 2009, 20:56

Well that is a contradiction, Sweden is one of the most 'solialised' countries in europe, certainly one of the highest taxing.......

Yep, but the difference between a "socialized" country like Sweden and a country led by an idiot who happens to be socialist and thinks the solution is to blame it to the USA(or worse as it happens here, blame it to all white Bolivians!) is huge

555-04Q2

15th June 2009, 06:49

Fair enough. My knowledge of Croatia is really nonexistent.

China, I had a chance to visit on business about seven years ago. I passed on that and tried to get in line for Brazil and didn't get to go to either.

Sorry to hear that you missed out Jag. If you get another chance to go to China on business, take it! Its a culture shock if you come from a country like yours, but it is a fabulous place if you love ancient culture and friendly people. On my last trip I saw and touched a wall that was built over 3000 years ago! Our history is nothing compared to what the Chinese have. While we deal in centuries, the Chinese deal in milleniums!

janvanvurpa

15th June 2009, 07:59

Mark,

I have lived in Europe and still spend quite a bit of time there.

Where? When? How long? Doing what kind of work?

Socialized medicine does not work, Never has. Never will. Socialized medicine is anti-democratic.
How dare anyone tell me which doctor I want to see or if a procedure is worth the cost?

Ah yes, the US health care system works with well oiled machine like precision inexorably cranking out the best health care in the world even if it costs per capita double what other high standard of living industrialised countries pay, but its relentless perfection just keeps on working perfectly ----except for minimum wage drones working in cubicles making decisions on what procedure should or shouldn't be done.

I have been injured and/or hospitalized in 4 different countries (all motorsport related)(in keeping with this forums raison d'etre) and got from adequate to very good treatment in every country except USA. Sweden, France, USA, People's Republic of China) Same injuries, same discriptions, hugely different outcomes.
(I just had a severely crushed disc at the top of the spine removed, the bone spurs in the joint cleaned up and a titanium frame screwed down---fantastic, amazing relief---I can move and inhale without going blind from pain, excellent result---THIS TIME! Too fawkin bad for me it took over 12 years, 5 different attempts to get what was painfully, blatantly obvious, and according to this doctor "You description of the pain, the fact you mentioned loosing 40mm of height, your precise description of where the pain was centered made this obvious at the outset" THIS TIME!! Maybe all those other lazy, can't be bothered, why not just eat drugs type doctors were all dirty Socialists!!!!, eh Mr Vop

Tell us Captain Vopmerica, tell us about your personal experience with the health care systems you condemn from Fortress South Florida.

[qoute]
BTW.
Healthcare is NOT A RIGHT.[/QUOTE]

Anything a sufficiently large number of people vote for to becomes a right, in a civilised country, becomes a right.
In nearly all the civilised world except USA, even the evil Capitalists saw the wisdom in making healthcare a Constitutionally guaranteed right.
Healthy people are more productive people, and more productive people raises the standard of living for the country while making more profits for their employers.

Look at where ever you come from as an example, nobody gave a crap to fund education, or to teach people to think as a right and so we all see that result in your truly masterful pieces of ratiocination.

Mark in Oshawa

19th June 2009, 01:29

I am of the thought that the John, you had some pretty crappy doctors in the USA. They can be anywhere, but I wont deny your case wouldn't make me love the current American healthcare system.

Healthcare is NOT a right, nor is food or sleep. We have to go get those last two on our own. Healthcare I think is something that unfortunately is not done best by government or by the private sector.

I am really reluctant to say public healthcare is all it is cracked up to be, because there is WAY too much evidence in Canada that it isn't the be all and endall, just many here wont hear of the truth. They want to believe in they myth, just like the tooth fairy. That said, I wouldn't want to be some poor schmo, maybe 30 years of age with no family wealth, in a so-so job and get some expensive and rare disease. One that takes you out of your job and the insurance companies wont help you to the extent maybe a socialized medicine would.

I don't think there is a good system anywhere for health care because it is the one thing we all need at some point but the cost of it is stupid expensive, and therefore a financing model that takes into account the human factor has to come in. Not sure what the solution is, and I think there is no good solution.

I just know this attitude of leaving it to the government is damned dangerous, yet I don't see any other solutions that help in worst case scenarios for people who are below the poverty line, or stricken before acquiring enough "wealth" ( you cant sell a house you haven't bought yet) to sell to pay for a health care issue.

It's the conundrum that will torment both the left and right of the civilized world forever.

Camelopard

20th June 2009, 08:42

This one is for vop:

http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomics/20090619/cx_nq_uc/nq20090619

pino

20th June 2009, 10:14

New Zealand and Texas :D

Mark in Oshawa

20th June 2009, 20:00

This one is for vop:

http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomics/20090619/cx_nq_uc/nq20090619

That is so true...lol

Eki

21st June 2009, 21:11

Healthcare is NOT a right, nor is food or sleep. We have to go get those last two on our own.
Then what exactly do you think IS a right? IMO everything you can't survive without is a right, including food and sleep.

So, if someone is depriving you from sleeping and eating, you don't think they are trying to take away your rights and should be allowed to do it?

ioan

21st June 2009, 21:12

Then what exactly do you think IS a right? IMO everything you can't do without is a right, including food and sleep.

So, if someone is depriving you from sleeping and eating, you don't think they are trying to take away your rights and should be allowed to do it?

I agree!

Mark in Oshawa

24th June 2009, 18:26

Then what exactly do you think IS a right? IMO everything you can't survive without is a right, including food and sleep.

So, if someone is depriving you from sleeping and eating, you don't think they are trying to take away your rights and should be allowed to do it?

Eki...you get a job so you can eat. The government of most nations doesn't have something in the constitution saying "we must feed people". You also have to work to provide shelter for yourself. There isn't anything in any constitution that I know of that says the Governement has to put a roof over your head so you can sleep at night either. Now governments DO provide food AND shelter. Tell me seriously tho, do you want to live in government "Free" housing or live off social assistance? NO...of course not. So why should healthcare in any society be a "right" and be gold plated? IT shouldn't. There is a bear minimum of care because society can afford it it most democracies, but most people pay for private care if they can afford it.

It is simple Eki. If food, healthcare, and shelter were human rights, than none of us would work and who the heck would pay for all these "rights"?

Mark in Oshawa

24th June 2009, 18:29

I agree!

You want to agree with EKi, that is fine, but being from Romania, tell me how well your government looked after you when it was giving you all these "Rights" of food, jobs and healthcare? I recall your great leader who was giving you all of this goodness was given the the death penalty, he did such a great job.

Any time someone from the government of any nation says you have the right for food, healthcare and shelter, just remember how well it works when there is no logic in how it will be paid for. Socialism promotes equality alright, equal misery.

Eki

24th June 2009, 18:44

You want to agree with EKi, that is fine, but being from Romania, tell me how well your government looked after you when it was giving you all these "Rights" of food, jobs and healthcare? I recall your great leader who was giving you all of this goodness was given the the death penalty, he did such a great job.

Any time someone from the government of any nation says you have the right for food, healthcare and shelter, just remember how well it works when there is no logic in how it will be paid for. Socialism promotes equality alright, equal misery.
I don't see much misery here or in the other Nordic countries:

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

High Human
Development

Iceland
Norway
Canada
Australia
Ireland
Netherlands
Sweden
Japan
Luxembourg
Switzerland
France
Finland
Denmark
Austria
United States

BTW, when the previous right oriented government took Iceland into an economic crisis, the Icelanders elected an openly lesbian socialist as their new Prime Minister:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jóhanna_Sigurðardóttir

Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir[1] (pronounced [jouːhanːa ˈsɪːɣʏrðartouʰtɪr]; born 4 October 1942) is an Icelandic politician and the current Prime Minister of Iceland. She had previously been Iceland's Minister of Social Affairs and Social Security from 1987–1994 and 2007–2009. She has been a member of the Althing (Iceland's parliament) for Reykjavík constituencies since 1978, winning re-election on eight successive occasions. She became Iceland's first female Prime Minister on 1 February 2009; she also became the world's first openly gay head of government of the modern era.[2][3]

Mark in Oshawa

24th June 2009, 19:11

I don't see much misery here or in the other Nordic countries:

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

BTW, when the previous right oriented government took Iceland into an economic crisis, the Icelanders elected an openly lesbian socialist as their new Prime Minister:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jóhanna_Sigurðardóttir

Eki...governments screw up, right or left and the other side will always benefit.

Secondly, nice list of countries there, none of them are truly socialist and some are not even left of center. Canada for one is a very centralist government no matter whether the left or right is in power. The parliamentry system in most of these nations tends to make any pushs to one side or the other of the political spectrum actually very gentle in nature.

Still doesn't change the fact that none of those nations guarntees you a roof over your head, and food in your belly. It is implied, but not a given.

I hold true to the point of view that most services that are provided by goverment usually are more expensive and usually worse in quality in their management or care than those provided by the private sector. Where the difference is, can you afford it and are you willing to work for it? If I settled for public housing, I would have to quit working and not care, because that would be the only way I qualified. My healthcare system doesn't give me any options, I am stuck with the government model, and while it provides pretty good care on some levels, it is slow and clunky and If I had cancer, I wouldn't want to wait on the system to screw around until I got sick enough to be eligible for immediate care.

Eki

24th June 2009, 19:22

Still doesn't change the fact that none of those nations guarntees you a roof over your head, and food in your belly.
Finland does, if you accept help, but they don't force feed you or lock you up under a roof if you don't accept what you're offered. I guess it is much the same in other Nordic countries. Of course there are some anti-social types who rather live alone in the woods or elsewhere rather than live with others in a homeless shelter, but still some kind of roof and food are guaranteed by the laws. The officials can't deny help, if they are asked.

Eki

24th June 2009, 19:24

Secondly, nice list of countries there, none of them are truly socialist and some are not even left of center.
None of them is truly capitalist either.

Close to truly capitalist systems are mainly seen in parts of Central and South America, where for example street children are taken care of by paramilitary death squads and those countries often have also communist or left wing "terrorist" groups too.

Mark in Oshawa

24th June 2009, 19:28

Eki, I have never advocated a truly capitalistic winner take all society either. My point is I err towards the free market providing better results for improvements in society with the government merely providing regulatory and legal frameworks for this activity.

Nations where the government is actively competiting with the private sector tend to tax more, restrict more, and spend more, while providing less and less.

There is a role for government in society, and I wont deny that in healthcare they have to be more involved than the auto industry (although the US Gov't and Canadian Gov't now own pieces of GM...YIKES!); but in healthcare, the Canadian gov't has tried to be all things to all people and are starting to fail miserably at it in some areas.

The myth that goverment is efficient and cost conscious is a fallacy.....

Eki

24th June 2009, 19:57

Nations where the government is actively competiting with the private sector tend to tax more, restrict more, and spend more, while providing less and less.

They also give more back to the taxpayers by providing jobs, infrastructure and services instead of buying dozens of foreign Ferraris, Rolls Royces and luxury yachts and keeping them idle in their garages and docks.

Mark in Oshawa

24th June 2009, 20:24

They also give more back to the taxpayers by providing jobs, infrastructure and services instead of buying dozens of foreign Ferraris, Rolls Royces and luxury yachts and keeping them idle in their garages and docks.

You just FAIL to grasp how capitalist democracies work. The guys with the big cars and the big houses are entrepreneurs ideally. If the company they create out of there hard work generates enough income to pay their workers a good salary, the government taxes on their income, and there is enough left over to live large, then all the power to them.

What you resent is someone having more than you when cannot fathom they got that wealth legitmately. Government does NOT CREATE WEALTH Eki. Every dime they have, they tax from you, or me, or the company down the street. While some of this is tolerable to all sane citizens, the second you start targeting people who have done something besides sit at home and complain by taxing them in a manner that is capricious, they will get cheesed off and take their wealth elsewhere. It is the result that you can see any nation with higher than tolerable tax rates.

Many companies move away or close down if it gets too harsh. Canadian companies have felt this as overtaxed jurisdicitions find companies leaving for other provinces or US states with less taxes. IT isn't always right, but capitalist businesses don't want to be targeted to pay for government to "give people services". The Canadian Auditor General's report is rife with reports of inept bureaucrats going through money with no accountability and if I am being over taxed to pay for that, I am going to be ticked.

Eki

24th June 2009, 20:38

You just FAIL to grasp how capitalist democracies work. The guys with the big cars and the big houses are entrepreneurs ideally. If the company they create out of there hard work generates enough income to pay their workers a good salary, the government taxes on their income, and there is enough left over to live large, then all the power to them.

If they pay a good salary, it's mainly because of labour unions and minimum wages (where they apply), they don't pay good salaries because they want to. They don't pay any more than they have to. Nowadays they often move their labour intensive businesses to Asia, Eastern Europe and elsewhere where labour is still cheap, if they can.

If the government wouldn't guarantee a minimum standard of living for doing nothing, those employers employed people for wages and salaries that provide lower standard of living than that minimum. Practically slave labour.

Mark in Oshawa

24th June 2009, 21:48

If they pay a good salary, it's mainly because of labour unions and minimum wages (where they apply), they don't pay good salaries because they want to. They don't pay any more than they have to. Nowadays they often move their labour intensive businesses to Asia, Eastern Europe and elsewhere where labour is still cheap, if they can.

If the government wouldn't guarantee a minimum standard of living for doing nothing, those employers employed people for wages and salaries that provide lower standard of living than that minimum. Practically slave labour.

Eki...there is that...the fact is though you wont have a skilled workforce if you wont pay them. If cheap labour was the only factor, then the third world would have a heck a lot more industry a long time ago than it does now. Furthermore, to BUY the products these companies make, it would likely be a good idea if your populace actually had the dough to spend.

You hate the rich, I can see where this is going. Just remember Eki, it is a balance, ying and yang. You have to regulate business and create a framework of minimum standards for employment but if you tax the heck out of entrepreuneurship and capitalist investment, you will end up with nothing, because the only thing Government does is live off the system. Governments with no one of wealth to tax are in places like Zimbabwe and Somalia.

Eki

24th June 2009, 23:22

Just remember Eki, it is a balance, ying and yang. You have to regulate business and create a framework of minimum standards for employment
That's what I say, but you seem to think all government control and framework are bad. For example here in Finland, it's mostly the government that educates workforce for the companies. The companies aren't that keen to pay for education and training of their employees. They expect to get readily educated and trained workers.

steve_spackman

25th June 2009, 03:32

This one is for vop:

http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomics/20090619/cx_nq_uc/nq20090619

;)

steve_spackman

25th June 2009, 03:32

USA and Canada

I already moved to my country of choice thats why i'm in the USA

Why the US?

Eki

25th June 2009, 09:53

Mark in Oshawa

25th June 2009, 17:10

That's what I say, but you seem to think all government control and framework are bad. For example here in Finland, it's mostly the government that educates workforce for the companies. The companies aren't that keen to pay for education and training of their employees. They expect to get readily educated and trained workers.

Does the government pay for your education then? IN Canada, you pay for it. You may get a low interest loan or grants if you are in need, but basically, you pay to put yourself through school. The Universities are private/public partnerships for the most part.

No companies seem to want to pay for trained workers, but I can tell you there is no incentive for them to change if the government is going to do their job for them.

Governments do a very bad job of running industry and running "business" like enterprises. One only has to watch how PM Pierre Trudeau in this country over paid for a bunch of smaller oil companies from their parent multinationals in Canada to create the Crown Corporation of Petro Canada in the early 80's. He fixed the game by giving PetroCan preferential leases and taking money that was constitutionally belonging to the Provinces where the oil was coming from (Mainly Alberta) and he still made a company that wasn't as profitable as the private sector oil companies. Petro Can was sold off in the late 80's and early 90's and is now private again, and it shows in how much they have increased their marketing, their pricing and the level of service at their stations.

The government in most large nations is a very poor steward of business if they participate in the market. THAT is clear over and over again; and yet politicians still seem to think they know how to be in business. Well being elected doesn't make you smart.

I have no problem with regulation and laws being enforced by government, but they have to be realistic and not restrict the ability of business to make a FAIR profit. Where a socialist might quibble with this is the notion of FAIR.

All I know is that I have no problem if the Unions want to take profit sharing and have their employees make 40 dollars an hour plus benefits, but I never see the Unions volunteering to take that cut in pay when the business goes through a rough patch and the company isn't making money. All businesses will go through this cycle, but very few actually make radical cuts in pay.

As for the corporate CEO's making millions? Well that is up to the stockholders and bondholders to stop that nonsense. They own the company, and have no problem paying someone 50 million a year if they are making money themselves, but they then forget they may lose at some point and buddy CEO is still making that 50 million. THEY have to be the ones to stop that, not the goverment. If someone is going to pay YOU 50 million to run a company, there isn't a soul on this forum. To say anything else would be a lie.....

Mark in Oshawa

25th June 2009, 17:12

Currently now that there's recession in Finland, the government is pumping out money for infrastructure building and research and development so that private companies can have work. What private companies are doing is that they are laying off their employees because they haven't been able to make as much profit as they've promised their stockholders, so that the management still can get their bonuses. I wouldn't say government and government control are all bad.

Eki, many companies are LOSING money. They are not paying dividends. Yes they lay off, why would they pay people to make product no one wants? You think they are laying them off to preserve bonus checks? Dream on.

GM in my hometown here shut a whole plant down because instead of selling 500000 pickups a year, they are now selling 250000 and they only need one plant building those pickups, not two. GM would lose MORE money by keeping them on the payroll. Government never lays anyone off, just keeps taxing more and more people to pay for their mismanagement. Again Eki, you keep forgetting Government doesn't create a damn thing that they haven't taken fiscally from someone else first.

Eki

25th June 2009, 20:01

Again Eki, you keep forgetting Government doesn't create a damn thing that they haven't taken fiscally from someone else first.
Exactly, the government acts as a buffer to dampen the bumps.

Eki

25th June 2009, 20:05

Eki, many companies are LOSING money. They are not paying dividends. Yes they lay off, why would they pay people to make product no one wants? You think they are laying them off to preserve bonus checks? Dream on.

Well, here companies lay off even if they have made profit the previous quarter or year, they just haven't made enough profit in their opinion or they think they won't make profit in the next year or quarter, even if they could take a negative year or a quarter once in awhile after being profitable in the past. It's not like it used to be in the seventies or the eighties, back then jobs were often for life (or until you retired).