Printable View
Since we have a lot of political debate on the board I figured I would post this link up and people could post their results.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
My scores:
Economic Left/Right: -1.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.13
I was closest to Pope John Paul II in comparisons, basically a moderate.
Economic Left/Right: 4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.41
I'm closest to Gerhard Schroder and Paul Martin.
Authoritarian/Right.
Economic Left/Right -5.12
Social Liberatarion/Authoritarion -5.18
Right next to Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama.
Liberatiarion/Left
econ 0.12
social 0.15
i also apparenty close to pope jp2, which is a good thing. though i think i was a little more centrist, basically i dont trust big companies, what is good for the market is not always good for the people.
authoritarian/ left.
Economic Left/Right: 4.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.69
I actually think some of those questions could have used some clarification, like the first question: "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations." I don't think I 'agree' or 'disagree' w/the statement. I think that globalisation serves BOTH humanity in general AND trans-national corporations, independent of any human control.
Anyways, I think I've alot more in common economically w/Maggie Thatcher than Hitler (my Econ L/R indicator should be 4 pts higher IMO). But on their scale I'm awfully close to Tony Blair :wtf: . I respect and admire him a great deal but our economic policies would differ greatly.
Anyways. Very cool site. I'll be emailing it to all my buddies.
Economic Left/Right: -4.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.54
Right next to Gandhi!
Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.97
Libertarian/Left
Economic Left/Right: -6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.82
Closest was The Dalai Lama, though I was still pretty far in the corner from him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
The FAQ addresses some of the issues you have brought up.
Economic Left/Right: -2.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.64
I'm right there with Nelson Mandela and The Dahli Lama.
Economic Left/Right: 1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.85
That sounds about right.
Economic Left/Right: -3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.95
Go Ghandi!
Economic Left/Right: -1.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.77
I'm basically directly in the middle from left to right, but a little closer to Libertarian than Authoritarian.
I thought my "left" social views (like those on gay marriage) and "right" economic views keep me in the middle from right to left, but it is somehow switched. *shrug*
PS: I'm not close in views to anybody, except maybe Tracer ;)
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.87
Pretty much what I expected
Economic Left/Right: 0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.72
I think Im about as close to the center as one can get.
I am (0, -1) on that big chart (right in the middle, one step to Libertarian).
I knew it!
Economic Left/Right: -2.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.18
Economic Left/Right: -4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.67
Economic Left/Right: -3.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.05
Economic Left/Right: -4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87
Pretty much what I expected.
Economic Left/Right: 7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 4.41
I am very near George W. Bush, John Howard, and Silvio Berlusconi and to the right of Tony Blair. What a shocker.
Who let Jacques Chirac in my quadrant?
Looks like you and I are it, Yoshi. Everyone else be damned!
Economic Left/Right: -2.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.18
I'm not near anybody. :(
Economic Left/Right: -4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.00
I never knew how economic left I was... hmmm...
Hey now, lets not be doing any of that damning. I probably got what I got because what I think I should do, and what people as a body should be allowed to do, are two different things and I answered the questions as such.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
Libertarian Left. I found that odd as I think most democrats are dicks, but hey, what can you do. Ofcorse I think anyone who uses the government to make up for their own personal weakness and/or to force others to do what they want are dicks.
This test's been around for awhile, but it's one of the better one's imo.
Economic Left/Right: 3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.44
I used to be like -2/-1 economic Left when I took this a year and a half ago. Guess I'm back to being a capitolist again :). But damn, I'm dead-on Jacques Chirac's spot... WTF?? I hate that guy... That can't be right... I'd say George Bush's position needs to be revaluated too =\.
Economic Left/Right: -3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08
Apparently I'm close to Ghandi as well... though some of those questions I would have answered with provisions. For example, "Religion and morality are closely linked" would have normally made me answer, "Depends on the religion." *shrug*
Just my $.02...
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.36
I'm literally atop Ghandi. Woop.
Economic Left/Right: -3.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.26
The Dalai Lama and I are pals
Jacques Chirac, as a right-wing Gaullist politician, actually has many points in common with the American right, but because he opposed the American war in Iraq the generally clueless American public labels him a "liberal."Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Politically you share much more in common with Chirac than Tony Blair.
Economic Left/Right: -1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.59
Really close to The Dalai Lama, near Nelson Mandela and Gandhi.
Economic Left/Right: -6.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.38
I'm Nelson Mendela and the Dhali Llama.
Figured as much.
Economic Left/Right: -4.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.26
Too bad i dont really know what any of that means.
Economic Left/Right: -1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.23
Next to Nelson Mandela and The Dahli Lama, too.
Economic Left/Right: -2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.36
That test is designed so 90% of people are considered Left, I think.
Economic Left/Right: -2.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.97
yo.
Economic Left/Right: -5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.28
Economic Left/Right: -6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.72
:p
Bush should be a tad higher on the Y axis methinks.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
And NeoZ is right, I think that test was very geared towards the left so that most people would find themselves there. I'm not suprised by my results personally but I can certianly see a tilt there. Chirac also belongs where he was placed IMO (a position I'm not fond of).
Of course you'd say that. Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that would bring him closer to Hitler, now would it? ;) But, I was thinking more in terms of his massive government-expanding programs; I can't say with confidence that he's some "neo-liberal..."Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracer
Yeah, I haven't seen one that doesn't have a left-tilt to it; that is, phrasing the questions to make those positions sound more favorable. Also, the gay issue tips the scales up/down a good deal.Quote:
And NeoZ is right, I think that test was very geared towards the left so that most people would find themselves there. I'm not suprised by my results personally but I can certianly see a tilt there.
Hm, then you're likely not fond of Dean according to them. Well, he's more right-wing, but seems like ~1.25 less authoritarian than Chirac. Compare the two: http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/poli...ries031002.gif http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/poli...ionalchart.jpgQuote:
Chirac also belongs where he was placed IMO (a position I'm not fond of).
See, that's just off in my book, but then, Dean's ever-changing positions might have something to do with it. Kunnich and Sharpton are in the right region at least ;). Anyway, it's not to be taken too seriously.
I said that because I see Bush as excessively nationalistic. Not because I'm calling him the next Hitler. Economically, he has some simularities though.
Indeed the quiz is favorable to the left. The questions that determine you position would seem hatefull to chose most that would being you further right which isn't very fair.
I'm not a fan of the Democratic party NightWolve, at least, not in general and Dean suits me no more than someone like Pat Buchanan (whom I would vote for over Bush because Bush simply does not make sence to me) would.
If you've got me pegged as a flag burning liberal then there's not much I can say to help that for you. I know I seldom, if ever, agree with you here but it's usually on things that I cannot say are absolutely right or wrong anyway. Personally, I consider myself a progressive, forward thinking rational person who only wants what is most pragmatic. Bush seems to have good inital motives but the exceution and the path he takes towards these things are irrational and often... extravagant? Certianly misguided in my opinion. He lacks the practicallity I have long associated with the Republican Party and indeed with any rational ruler. Heck, Texans stereotypically pride themselves on being 'pragmatic,' and placeing 'common-sence' above all else. Times they are a changein'.
What specific policies of the Bush administration would you characterize as impractical and irrational?
We desparately need a politics board (and a videogame discount board that also doubles as a "haul" board).
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
Pulling out of the Kyoto Treaty and putting a fucking CORPORATE AMERICA WHORE as head of the EPA. Then of course there's wanting to fuck ANWAR for a relative pittance of petroleum.
Need more? Because I can just go on and on...
Just checking ;).Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracer
Nah, neither a US flag-burning liberal, nor a Confederate flag-waving Southerner ^_^. But, I went with just plain old left-of-center liberal.Quote:
If you've got me pegged as a flag burning liberal then there's not much I can say to help that for you.
Yeah, I like the Texan-style approach myself. Extravagant? Hehe. I guess... Fair criticism though. I'd say the domestic spending practices are irrational (although there's a tango with Congress on that), plus the "I promise to never veto a bill" deal. He's losing me on some things domestically, but I don't see a better choice for my tastes. If there was though, it'd have to come from the republican party.Quote:
Bush seems to have good inital motives but the exceution and the path he takes towards these things are irrational and often... extravagant? Certianly misguided in my opinion. He lacks the practicallity I have long associated with the Republican Party and indeed with any rational ruler. Heck, Texans stereotypically pride themselves on being 'pragmatic,' and placeing 'common-sence' above all else. Times they are a changein'.
-8.25
-4.12
Opposition to Kyoto is nothing if not practical. The shackles that would be placed around our economy's neck would hinder growth for years. Now, it would certainly make us feel better about the environment. Whether it would actually help the environment in proportion to how much it would cripple our economy is up for debate. But as far as economic policy is concerned, Kyoto is a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
The footprint that would be created in ANWAR would be +/- 30 sq miles. Do you know how many sq. miles are in the Alaskan National Wildlife Animal Reserve? :lol:
Not to mention that drilling practices are safer, cleaner and more efficient than they've ever been. One could argue (as you do) that ANWAR will not solve our energy problems for perpetuity. That's a very poor reason to forbid drilling. 'Gee, we can't get ALL the milk we'll ever need at Safeway today. Better hold off.'
I remain unconvinced Bush's policies are impractical/irrational. Certainly drilling in ANWAR is practical. Irrational? How so? And why would it be considered irrational to want to preserve economic growth instead of implementing a vauge, ill-defined treaty such as Kyoto?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
Alright, stop spouting the right-wing party line and go do some research.
In the meantime, let me debunk your web of shit.
First, Kyoto is not some 'vague, ill-defined treaty' designed to kill American industry. It is a sobering realization by the international community that we must take steps to stop global warming. It finally holds industrialized nations accountable for their insane levels of greenhouse gases. Is it asking them to become completely clean? Of course not, unfortunately something like that is relatively impossible. As it stands the UN is only asking that the member nations lower their emissions 5-fucking-% below their 1990 levels over the next decade. True, that's really not much, but it's a helluva lot better than just letting the emissions pile up without ANY regulation.
As for it putting 'shackles' around the neck of the economy; Well, I'm sorry if keeping the fucking planet livable is making it harder for fortune 500 assholes to buy their 15th yacht, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make. Of course, it's a laughable economic policy, IT'S NOT DESIGNED TO MAKE YOU MONEY, IT'S DESIGNED TO SAVE THE GODDAMN EARTH!
ANWAR is a wildlife reserve, it's not in the middle of the ocean or in some dirt patch in Texas. Any tampering with the ecosystem could cause harm that would be potentially irreversable. If you knew fuckall about ecology you'd know this already, but since you're obviously getting your enviromental info from the Shell Answer Man I can see why your perceptions on the issue are so tragically skewed. Besides, their most optimistic predictions on how much oil is beneath ANWAR don't even amount to what the U.S. uses in a week. The infinitesimal pros do NOT outweigh the cons in this case.
Bush has made clear he has no other goals during his administration than to french kiss corporate America's rectum. Every executive decision he has made ALWAYS has the underlining effect of benefiting the rich, further remming the middle-class, and completely dismissing the poor.
Mmmm...hyperbole masquerading as considered argument...*mouth waters*
J/k dood. Calm down, man! Your platitudes have yet to convince me. ;)
Face it, I just pwned j00.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
not even remotely, if anything you just made yourself look really bad with the rhetoric. Most will now just lump you as a radical left and ignore you because you use way too much emotional and insulting language, debate calmly and rationally or face the consequences of making your position look stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
anywho, i was looking back, and it seems that gohron and i both made the same mistake of assuming the first drawing with the 2 lines represented our own standings, turns out my actual standing was so imperceptably close to (0,0) that i thought it was just a red indicator of it. Generally i do consider myself more conservative than this quiz showed, but i can see how it came down to that as i usually attempt to at least understand the side that i dont agree with. it is funny that veggie was somuch more high on the scale than i was given how much we generally agree, but, so be it, diff and i are the moderates on this board..who knew (but im more moderate :p ):lol:
...Not really close to anyone.
Yeah, don't you hate it when people are passionate about their beliefs? Gross unflinching apathy is so much better.Quote:
Originally Posted by frostwolf ex
I totally know that joke!Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
A deligation of countries work on creating protocol which will allow for the sustainability of environment whilst allowing for the sustainability of national economies. America and numerous other countries fail to ratify it in their parliments, because they would rather focus on short term gains then on the long term gain of being able to walk outside in the year 2060 without getting fucked up by the sun.
Oh.. shit, that's not funny.
Most of the countries that signed it are not even close to meeting the required emissions, so what's the point of signing something you cant live by?Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
But hey, we're talking about the EU, the guys that gave France a pass on their deficit spending while forcing everybody to stick tight to the EU doctrines on that...
Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.46
oddly enough i was thinking of you when i posted that, since one of the reasons i came to like your posts was when you did the opposite of what gozen did, and you posted a calm, rational post in some religion threadQuote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
that allowed others with different views to respond intelligently, rather then defensively, and you didnt resort to needless profanity or insults to get your point across, and regardlessof wether the arguments swayed you, you responded politely and calmly. we all dont agree on many things, and im glad, since it would be boring otherwise, but there are 2 categories of people, those who want to debate, and those who want to shout, the former is a joy, and why i come here, and the latter is why i consider ditching this troll stand. if gozen had stats, reasons, and facts in his response it would be cool, but he just spouted off unsupported profanity, and really, if you look at the post said nothing, if someone has a good defense for kyoto, it would be intersting to hear it, but can you honetsly say anyone learned anything from gozen's post?
Economic Left/Right: -2.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
Meach - He and, as NightWolve mentioned, Congress have put forward many acts which moreorless make no sence. Pushing forward on a ballistic missle defence and putting more funding towards the implementation and deployment proceedures than to making the actual system work. This went against treaties as it was and for what? A defence system that would shoot down ICBMs? Would that it ever worked. Because it never has. Only once when a homing device was attached to the target. There's more than twice as much funding going into its implementation and installation than to researching on how to make things work. The idea is to pioneer it by test of action (said loosely by Rumsfield). If you think about that you'll really see how completely stupid that is. There's not even a clear adversary with long range nuclear cabablities. China if anything but China is not fucking stupid. This was slowed by congress but pushed through after 9/11. Why? To shoot down any other planes that might be heading for a skyscrapper near you? Standard issue SAMs can do that. Examples relateing to defence descisions go on like a laundry list. However, it's been pretty bad, defence wise, since before Bush. He and his administration have made it signifigantly worse however.
Thier data gathering system on all civilians in the US is also impractical because that is an unwieldly (not to mention invasive and, IMO, unconsitutional) process and not likely to yeild signifigant results.
Overall domestic policy stinks of "STFU, we're in charge here." He's awfully big government for a Republican.
Also, his handleing of many forigen, er, excersices have not been very cost effective or in the general interest of the people who elected him - rather, it is in the percived best interests of other peoples with a signifigant disgreguard to various other peoples desent. That also stinks of "STFU, we're in charge here."
2050 actually, as a general estimate. But whats 10 years in the doom of our climate.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Quote:
Originally Posted by frostwolf ex
I'm sorry about the profanity, but I type the way I talk. I am passionate about what I believe in, and since I live in an area where my beliefs are so against the norm I repeatedly have to defend them and it frustrates me.
I think it's unfair to say nothing in my post had relevance. Instead of letting The Meach trivialize Kyoto I laid out some of what it was proposing and why pulling out of it was more strictly a partisan decision and not one done in the best interest of all Americans.
I also rebutted (albeit somewhat harshly) to his assertion that ANWAR would not be effected by the drilling with science fact, the local ecology shouldn't be exposed to the myriad of disturbances made by oil drilling both directly and indirectly.
When I made that post it was out of anger, but only because The Meach wasn't making an original argument, he simply regurgitated the same tired disingenuous propaganda shoveled our way by a corporate system that sees profits instead of people and resources instead of a planet.
EDIT: I said at the first The Meach should have done his research before he said anything, but if you want me to lay it all out for him. Here you are:
The full Kyoto Treaty
A synopsis of it you'll actually read
Some info on ANWAR
-7.4
-1.4
It is pretty clear that the next TNL logo should be red.
And yellow. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Economic Left/Right: 5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.38
Closest to Tony Blair, John Howard, and Margret Thatcher. Awwwwww yeah. I'm gonna be floating all day.
Did anyone land on hitler?
How about his horrendous track record on the environment and education?Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
So we'll only drill there and never expand, right? That's how it starts. A wildlife reserve is something to be protected forever, not just until we need it. You want to reduce dependence on foreign oil? Tell the Saudis to fuck off.Quote:
The footprint that would be created in ANWAR would be +/- 30 sq miles. Do you know how many sq. miles are in the Alaskan National Wildlife Animal Reserve?
Economic Left/Right: -2.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.87
A few years ago, my Economic score would have been like -5 to -6. If they had an Environment score, though, I would be near Hitler. Hehe.
Just kidding; but seriously, all this crap about saving the planet is nice - but ultimately useless. We'll either go extinct and the planet will move on, or we'll figure out a way to migrate to other planets in the future and leave Earth behind. I'm all for lower emissions and good gas mileage and all that, but not for environmental reasons.
Yet, I wanted that lion to kill that hunting party. Go figure. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 680x0
I tried to get up at the top but I still couldn't manage it.
ok gozen, that was much better, easy to follow and containing the facts you need. I was not trying to call you out, but i myself have made the mistake of letting my passion for a cause cloud my communication of its reasoning, and it really didnt help convey the cause accurately. If you back it up its all good.
With the delusions of granduer and the love of war and things that go boom, I was sure it was going to be me. But all that lovey-dovey liberal crap weighed me down. Still, I'm not overly surprised.Quote:
Originally Posted by 680x0
With Jesus nailed to it... you bible thumping ass bandit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
That has got to be the best flame I've ever heard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Icepick
*polysci flashback*
Economic Left/Right: -8.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.79
That's about what I expected. :)
You haven't posted there yet, but I won't be surprised in the slightest at what you'll say in the 'Ideal Society" thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by sggg
Commie!!Quote:
Originally Posted by sggg
Heh, yeh.. I guess my score could pretty much speak for itself in both threads. You saved me having to read through that entire thread. Cheers. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brisco Bold
You would have posted exactly what I would have, albeit more eloquently, sans guns and boom!Quote:
Originally Posted by sggg
This is why I like this forum. The (political) flaming isn't out of control.Quote:
Originally Posted by frostwolf ex
Good catch. One could make a good argument that SDI is impractical. You've made pretty good one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracer
Yet more proof of Bush being impractical. Large gov't programs are inherently impractical and inefficient.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracer
I'm not clear on what you're arguing here. Are you saying Bush has not been acting on the behalf of Americans? Or are you saying he's only implementing policies that benefit select individuals/campaign contributors? Or are you saying that his foreign policies have helped foreigners (Iraqis, Afghans, etc) but NOT Americans?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracer
You assert Bush's foreign policies have been inefficient from an economic standpoint. One could argue foreign policies should primarily be judged on how they enhance American prestige/security and not on how they impact the bottom line.
All told, good answers to my question "What specific policies of the Bush administration would you characterize as impractical and irrational."
It's not that it had no relevance. It's that by getting mad and going off I've no way of responding to you. Tracer and I disagree about (some things about) Bush, it's just that he presented his argument in a way in which I could respond. It's hard to engage on an issue if the dialogue consists of "OMGSTFU!"Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
I'm not sure conservatives oppose Kyoto on partisan grounds. The term partisan, when used in politics, refers to blindly taking a position solely for political gain. I haven't seen that Republicans are gaining any political advantage. If anything, they leave themselves open to the (continued) charge that they're heartless bastards that want to torch the planet. This is why I argue that conservatives oppose Kyoto b/c they think it is bad public policy (they believe it will cripple our economy and hurt the economic well-being of all Americans).Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
I think this is a good point. If drilling in ANWAR condemns the most pristine nature preserve in N America to a sea of oil wells (though that would be a HECK of a lot of oil ;) ), we should probably think twice. But drilling in ANWAR wouldn't do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
I'm sure we can both agree that regurgitating 'the same tired disingenuous proganda' is never a good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
:lol: j/k!Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Anyways. I think it's a good idea to make the most of our natural resources and manage our planet responsibly. However well-intentioned Kyoto is, I don't happen to think the Treaty does that, and compliance (or the lack thereof) by signatories doesn't do anything to reassure me it would.
Not necessarily true. See Allyson Pollock et al., "Public Services and the Private Sector" (http://www.catalystforum.org.uk/pdf/paper1.pdf)Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
Consider: Canada has a larger health care program than the states, but it only spends 9.7% (of its GDP) -- +/-2% less than in the US (over 11%). (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/20/2789777.pdf). The jump in Canadian Health Care Expenditures as a precentage of GDP occured during the 90s when we tried to reduce the size of the health care system and adopt American strategies (such as Private Public Partnerships). In 1980 Health Expenditures in Canada were 7.1 as a percentage of GDP. The smaller American system is inefficient, countless studies proof of this. See Paul Pierson, "Dismantling the Welfare State? Reagan, Thatcher, and the Politics of Retrenchment" (Cambridge University Press, 1996,) pp. 132. Also, see Pat Armstrong et al., "Heal Thyself: Managing Health Care Reform" Garamond Press, 2000) Chapter 3. There is a big difference between the American system and the government run one; regardless of the policy area, the publicly run, larger systems are ALWAYS more effective.
You get what you pay for...Quote:
Originally Posted by Brisco Bold
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
A Commie would be higher on the chart not lower, although they would be in the left.
Although I guess you didn't mean to be serious:P
Bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Until I got to college I was one of the 45 million or so Americans without health care. And you know if you dont work for a company that gives you health benefits you probably cant afford a doctor, either.
So everytime I got sick my parents had to scrap together the $80 to take me to the doctor, along with the $50-$60 or so to get me my medication. That's a lot of money to pull out your ass because your kid got sick from some piece of shit at school whose parents let him go to school ill, let me tell you. And when I had a cavity, that was like $250-$350, it might've been even more but I never asked my parents how much it was. Thank God I have good teeth.
Right now I am slightly better off because my mom may be getting health insurance in the near future, and I am in college and the health services can take care of me for minimal cost. But Im part of a family who is moving up the social ladder, and I know Im not representative of most families who dont have insurance.
The motto for American health care is "If you dont got insurance, SLAG OFF!". They treat you like shit and demand payment up-front and if you dont got it, prepare to beg for a payment plan. It's fucking humiliating and painful and there's no reason for it. When I got my wisdom teeth pulled, they gave me a pamplet the week before that said "All financial matters will be taken care of beforehand, so you can relax on surgery day", but when I got there ready to get my face drilled they handed me a giant bill and told me to pay the fuck up. Of course I didnt have the $600 or so so I had to call my dad and he had to deal with them on the phone from the other side of the country which delayed everything like 2 hours, which was fucking beautiful.
Plus right now even if you DO have health insurance you still have to deal with the debilitating mess of paperwork and bureacracy that comes with the insurance industry.
But the problem is that if you're sick, you're sick. There's nothing you can do about it. And most of those 45 million are in the big fat "too rich to get help, too poor to actually pay for anything" lower-middle-class bracket that is completely on their own. Thanks a lot.
It's seriously a goddamn mess and needs to change. Ive never been in Canada, I dont know what health care is like there, but quite frankly I would take free health care that is mediocre over health care that is so good I cant pay for it. I dont like socialist governmental programs but something's got to change here.
I mean after graduation Ill get a real job that will have health insurance so everything will be kosher for me then but what about the 44,999,999 other people?
So, in closing, if your family has been content and has had good health insurance your whole life, Yoshi, shut the fuck up because you have no idea what you are talking about that type of thing.
The same thing happend to me when I had an abcess in an upper right molar. Hurt every second of every day and was almost completely crippleing. I had to wait untill I had enough money saved to put down a down payment. Worst time of my life.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Were our health care shit, why would people come here, to the Sick Kids hospital in Canada for example, to get treatment for dabilitating diseases and injuries? Health care in Canada is on par with American health care. Private health care, on the other hand, is not as good as public care. Check out Colin Ley's book "Market-driven Politics: Neoliberal Democracy and the Public Interest" (Verso, 2001). In one chapter, Ley's details the transformation of the excellent Public British Health Care system into a two-tiered system. Public service only dipped in quality when the British government syphoned money out of it to the private sector. And even then the private sector sucked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
The thing is, I'm quite sure Yoshi wants health-care expenditures curtailed, but for this to happen, the government has to invest in it and control it. But that goes against the Republican "big government is evil" battle-cry. It must suck.
Students, the unemployed, single mothers, all qualify for the universal health reform we have in PR. Being stuck with a part time position at 3 universities, I have no health plan. I went to the reform office and was told "you make too much to qualify."
I sent my wife back the next day with the baby and a single check stub from only one university, and now my entire family has health coverage.
It's funny that I was considered too qualified. A month after losing my plan, my daughter was hospitalized in pediatric intensive care for a week. It came out to almost $9000. Where the hell was I supposed to come up with that kind of cash? Thanks to the health reform, I didn't pay squat. I also have dentist coverage, eye exams, general medicine, and some medication covered as well.
So I agree with Diff. I'll take mediocre coverage over nothing any day of the week.
Why the fuck does Puerto Rico have universal health coverage and we dont?
Im not even kidding right now, it really pisses me off.
I think that it's the fundamental right of an American citizen who works 45 hours a week to have satisfactory health care (as long as he attempts to stay healthy) and a reasonable wage. A "living wage" and health care are necessary for a person to be 'free', and we owe it to our citizens if we're able to give it to them. I think we are.Quote:
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 4.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.41
I don't know what a "living wage" is. I think the left, at times, underestimates the quality of life of an average poor person. What do you need to be able to buy on a "living wage"? Food, housing (yeah). A car - a nice car? A TV, cable, a Xbox, what?
A life on a living wage can not be 'great'. People have to want to have more than a 'living wage', or the system WILL NOT WORK. A living wage has to be just barely enough.
People must always pay for the choices they make. Work/Doing Good Things = improvement in the quality of your life. Laziness/Doing Bad Things = your life getting worse.
Smart/Athletic/Wealthy people also should have more opportunities and a commensurately higher chance at future fiscal success and/or happiness than Dumb/Weak/Poor people. Contentious, I know, but unavoidable - people are different. Some people are lucky, some people aren't. Trying to flatten out those differences is unnatural, and won't help anyone.
A "living wage" would have to expand when a person marries or has children. I would like it if the Government subsidized stay-at-home mothers who are married (married to a 45hr/week worker and staying at home = 45 hour a week job). Don't know if that's feasible.
Public school is, of course, a right. Post-high school, I don't know - I think we need more trade schools and less of a focus on sending kids to university. The government shouldn't be paying to send people to get English degrees (for the most part), as much as it pains me to say that.
The way we'd accomplish giving every citizen and their family health care and a "living wage" is through what we'd call a 'negative tax'. With taxes, you give a certain percentage of each dollar you earn to the government.
With 'negative tax', the government matches each dollar you earn with a certain amount of money. The government would supplement your minimum wage enough to get you up to a point where you could sort-of-scrape-by. As you worked harder, the government would give you more (it'd keep supplementing your income, helping you improve your prospects).
As your wage increased, the percentage tacked on by the government would slowly decrease, until at some point, your money was entirely your own.
We'd pay for the negative tax by increasing personal tax rates on the very rich. Corporate taxes would stay the same (or decrease?)
I'd be interested in the US Government running an optional insurance plan available to all Americans. It'd be a public/private insurance company, basically - something like Freddie Mae for Insurance. The size of the insurance company (monolithic) would limit risk and would, hopefully, lower costs.
Everyone who wanted to opt-in to the US Government Insurance plan would have to pay for it. If you didn't have the money to pay for it, the government would use EITC-type negative taxes (very complicated subject) to pay your insurance bills for you. People with money would still have to pay for insurance if they wanted access to the government plan. If they liked their private plan more, then they could keep it.
IE:
Some poor person - he elects to use the Government Plan, his insurance bill is $2400/year. He makes $12k/year. The government pays his $2400/year insurance bill for him. If some poor person decides to start smoking, then perhaps a penalty is assessed on his $12k/year. More payroll taxes are taken out. If he's obese, he pays.
Some regular person - he elects to use the Government Plan, insurance bill for his family is $6000/year. His family makes $50k year. The government pays $5000/year for his health care. He pays $1000/year.
Mr. Moneybags - he doesn't want the Government Plan, he wants his own private plan. He pays whatever the private company asks for, and probably gets better health care and magical gold bedpans. Fine.
Australia has Universal Health Care, but the current goverment, the Liberals (they aren't actually liberals, they are conservative), want to take it away :cry:
Eh...Quote:
Originally Posted by Brisco Bold
Seeing how I live in Washington state and my mother is an RN in the health-care industry, I like to presume I've a reasonable handle on the health-care issues facing US/Canada. The waiting lists for major operations are long, according to my friends in school up in Canada. Many Canadians (who can afford it) come to this country for highly specialized medical care (opthometry, internal medicine, etc). Here in Washington state plenty of wealthy Canadians cross the border for private care in America. I haven't heard of any Americans going to Canada for operations/care (though some do to take advantage of subsidized prescription drugs...which directly forces American drug companies to charge more).
Public care might very well COVER more ppl. But is the standard of health care better than private care? I would say no (based on speaking to my mother and anecdotal evidence). Should the quality of health care be measured by the quantity of ppl covered? When considered in total, Canada could very well claim it has an overall better system b/c they cover more ppl. But I'm unconvinced that our American system is inferior from a quality standpoint.
One reason health coverage is so expensive here is due to an increase in demand. Many ppl abuse the insurance system and backlog healthcare services w/sore-throat/slight fever complaints, increasing insurance costs.
But the most significant reason for high health care costs in this country is due to R&D. Research and Development costs are ENORMOUS. When miracle drugs are found, the costs of failed experiments are (rightfully) passed on to consumers. It's rough, but that's the price of progress.
Anyways, I'll try and track down some of the texts Brisco has offered for further reading. And maybe come back w/some links supporting my view.
DiffX's story certainly shows the downside to free market health care. :|
I worry, though, that publicly funded health care would discourage innovation, raise the tax burden and decrease the quality of health care available.
Yea The_Meach, it definitely does. The problem is that the downside is too significant: I was once like all about the "There's a reason why it's free up North" type of person, but after all that happened and the realization came to me that Im one of 45 million who has suffered like that, I got very very very sour on our health care system.
To be sure, our doctors are the best in the world by far (all the smartest come from other countries to study and practice medicine here, my roommate is applying to med schools now, the competition is ridiculous), our facilities are the best in the world, etc., but at what cost? It's not accessible to everybody. Not even close. And if anything, anything, anything should be accessible to everyone in this day and age, it's health care.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Saddam and the Taliban must have been laughing about this question a few years back.
Heh... answered 'disagree' on that one. Not strongly because what if the enemy of your enemy is or would be 'friend' on some other level as it is?
I answered strongly agree. It's totally worked for America adopting that stance throughout the years...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracer
Anyway...
Me on Sunday:
Me Today:Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.62
Must be that Brie and Cranberry sandwhich I ate after finishing Homer's Odyssey...
Me on Sunday:
Me Today:Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.62
Must be that Brie and Cranberry sandwhich I ate after finishing Homer's Odyssey... :\
Is that sarcastic?Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
We armed Saddam Hussien and put the Taliban in power because they were the enemies our our enemies (Iran and Russia, respectively) and it turned out to be a fucking nightmare.
Let me correct my statement. Given the evidence I've read, private health care systems aren't as efficient as publicly run ones. Now, how good the health is... I shouldn't have assumed. I know about money and about efficiency of the systems but not about actual quality of care compared to the US. But I know our's is not mediocre. And the line-ups you're talking about and decrease in the quality in care is because our neo-liberal government is trying to turn our system into the American system. But I want to your evidence, too. Civil debates rock.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
Also check out Allyson Pollock's piece, "Will primary care trusts lead to US-style health care?" (http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m09...05/print.jhtml)