American Dominance on the World Stage

They can already build 4th generation fighters from the help of other nations while only a matter of years ago they could'nt??

Oh give a break, you call the inferior J10 a fourth gen fighter? Its a badly copied version of the F-16 and it would not last 2 seconds in the air against superior fighters of the USAF. China is behind the US in all areas of military technology. We have a better army navy air force need I say more?

Originally posted by devilwasp
wow you really hate me. i would love to take credit for putting paraghs of reseatch against you but i cant cause i didn't it was stumason ,a good man, who got this information so YOU get your facts right.
also one thing i never said you had more men than us ,and if you dont care about how good your men where,hwo good your planners where,how many men died or what happened why are you even argueing hell i know america had more men i accept that BUT you planned everything like a bunch of amatuers.
so a thread entitled "american dominace world wide" isnt trying to brag? hmm mabye you should rethink this.
actually YOU said america done the most part of the war by filling up the war in france. YOU said you done the most part in a LARGE offensive. you done a large part in a SMALL offensive.

i dont hate you ok?
there is no reason why i would, i dont even know you, and this argument is getting more pointless by the day, and im actually sick of getting more websites to argue a point which to me doesnt really even matter, believe what u want, and ill believe what i want ok? its irelevent, and i wasnt the one who started this thread there buddy, so dont talk to be about the title of this thread and dont talk about the people who planned the invasion that freed france ok? they were great men and they arent here to defend themselves, have some respect for the generals who won the war-i never bashed any british or other leaders...anyway thats it. now for the other thing...

Originally posted by stumason

so what we had more men, what the fk, UR THE WON THAT STARTED THIS , im not trying to braga bout who had more men, ur trying to make a big stink about it and defending ur british honor or whatever, i madea statement and u go on , so i get the facts from a british site, dont patronize me about mine tanks and bs, i dont give a rats a hole ok? im telling u what i found and u were wrong, i dont care about who died more or what idiot general did what to whose tanks, OK? and back to the first statement, all that stuff i got from ww1 was from a BRITISH site, go check it out urself, dont hit me with paragrpahs of crap, i dont have the strength to read it, iw as jus in a hurricane which is why im replying so late, anyway.. this statement : The British Army had 1.6 million men wounded during the First World War. Approximately 662,000 were killed and another 140,000 were recorded as missing, presumed dead. was not a continuation from the last sentence, it was as of the end of the war... i believe

Dude, if you re-read your post, you did exactly what I said you did. Took figures for one point in time, and attempted to use them to prove another point that happened 3 years later.

Maybe it is your poor grammar, limited spelling ability and lack of punctuation, but that is what you said.

And stating that you do not have the strength to read what I posted disputing what you said, is arrogance in the extreme. I took the time to read what you posted. I also took the time to realise you had distorted the facts. if you wish to continue this discussion, then maybe you should read what others post, instead of blindly believing whatever you want and screw everybody else.

And it may well be from a British site, but I am inclined to believe an official Army website over any other when it comes to presenting facts about what they have got up too.

Cheers Devilwasp, thanks for the support dude. I agree that starting a thread announcing how great America was/is/is going to be and putting down the achievements, and in the case of WW2, outstanding bravery in the face of overwhelming odds of another country (especially one that has supported you no matter what), is exactly why people are pissed off with the US.

One word my friend....empathy.

If the US had even a shread of it, and attempted to put themselves in the position of others before steamrolling their way across the world, perhaps they would be the "greatest" country on earth and actually be liked by the population of said planet.....

[edit on 8-9-2004 by stumason]

i dont have "poor grammar, limited spelling ability and lack of punctuation" ok? this isnt my english class alriite? this is the internet and i type fast and i dont rele bother to make it perfect, my writing is perfectly legibile and its not very mature of you to bash the way i type online...im not arrogant either, i did read ur post, but it was late and i was not in the mood to read it perfectly ok? im glad u took the time to read my post but i didnt analyze yours, go ahead bash me for it i really do not care. ""If the US had even a shread of it, and attempted to put themselves in the position of others before steamrolling their way across the world, perhaps they would be the "greatest" country on earth and actually be liked by the population of said planet....."" of course the whole world hates us, we are the envy of the world. they always hate the greatest because we have the most money, most technology and most powerful military that dominates the world stage, and thats the truth. you say we dont have pity? what do we need to have pity for? i apparently missed your point. dont bother explaining it tho, im sick of these pointless arguements as i stated be4, and i really am in no mood to be called some "dumb american" becuz u make no sense.

ps: dont u think its very funny, how the whole world HATES us, and they all hop, skip and jump to live here. well dont bother replying to this anytime soon, as im not going to be on this for a while...

Originally posted by imAMERICAN


i dont hate you ok?
there is no reason why i would, i dont even know you, and this argument is getting more pointless by the day, and im actually sick of getting more websites to argue a point which to me doesnt really even matter, believe what u want, and ill believe what i want ok? its irelevent, and i wasnt the one who started this thread there buddy, so dont talk to be about the title of this thread and dont talk about the people who planned the invasion that freed france ok? they were great men and they arent here to defend themselves, have some respect for the generals who won the war-i never bashed any british or other leaders...anyway thats it. now for the other thing...

hey i was stateing a fact not bashing. ok i wont blame u for the topic.

Originally posted by imAMERICAN


""If the US had even a shread of it, and attempted to put themselves in the position of others before steamrolling their way across the world, perhaps they would be the "greatest" country on earth and actually be liked by the population of said planet....."" of course the whole world hates us, we are the envy of the world. they always hate the greatest because we have the most money, most technology and most powerful military that dominates the world stage, and thats the truth. you say we dont have pity? what do we need to have pity for? i apparently missed your point. dont bother explaining it tho, im sick of these pointless arguements as i stated be4, and i really am in no mood to be called some "dumb american" becuz u make no sense.

ps: dont u think its very funny, how the whole world HATES us, and they all hop, skip and jump to live here. well dont bother replying to this anytime soon, as im not going to be on this for a while...

most tech? thats why you build a crap scout chopper?or a navy helicopter that sinks ? the envy of the world? really man come on you have a very bad health system and a very bad social security system. yeah dominates the world huh? that why you have a problem with third world country?
and your great troops get given cards not to ascociate with british troops, cause you will lose?you dont have pity? then you will never evolve or move forward you will always be violent. i make no sense? you make no sense trying to say your the big kid and can do whatever you want and we have to do what you say.
also your most hated because you go in and kill hundereds of civilains to rid the world of 1 or 2 men, is it worth it? IS IT?

ps. if your so great why are you running away from this argument?

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by imAMERICAN


""If the US had even a shread of it, and attempted to put themselves in the position of others before steamrolling their way across the world, perhaps they would be the "greatest" country on earth and actually be liked by the population of said planet....."" of course the whole world hates us, we are the envy of the world. they always hate the greatest because we have the most money, most technology and most powerful military that dominates the world stage, and thats the truth. you say we dont have pity? what do we need to have pity for? i apparently missed your point. dont bother explaining it tho, im sick of these pointless arguements as i stated be4, and i really am in no mood to be called some "dumb american" becuz u make no sense.

ps: dont u think its very funny, how the whole world HATES us, and they all hop, skip and jump to live here. well dont bother replying to this anytime soon, as im not going to be on this for a while...

most tech? thats why you build a crap scout chopper?or a navy helicopter that sinks ? the envy of the world? really man come on you have a very bad health system and a very bad social security system. yeah dominates the world huh? that why you have a problem with third world country?
and your great troops get given cards not to ascociate with british troops, cause you will lose?you dont have pity? then you will never evolve or move forward you will always be violent. i make no sense? you make no sense trying to say your the big kid and can do whatever you want and we have to do what you say.
also your most hated because you go in and kill hundereds of civilains to rid the world of 1 or 2 men, is it worth it? IS IT?

ps. if your so great why are you running away from this argument?

im not running away from anything, im not here to have arugments, im here to have intelligent posts with other intelligent people, if i want to have an argument, ill talk to a person face to face, not online where i have to constantly read posts and then type up a entire thing, its not worth it, and i dont need added stress of a computer argument ok? ""you make no sense trying to say your the big kid and can do whatever you want and we have to do what you say."" when did i say that huh? i never ever said that the usa is the "big kid" and can do what ever it wants and no 1 can stop us or w/e. ur putting words in my mouth, and thats completly childish. ""thats why you build a crap scout chopper?or a navy helicopter that sinks ?"" what the hell r u talking about may i ask? becuz the last time i checked, the usaf is pretty hi tech buddy, actually dont even bother, im not replying to this, and im not continuing this argument becuz its completly bs, dont talk about the health in the usa, our country has the best doctors in the world, and u sound like u only pay attention to the liberal bs cnn newsstation, and YES thousands (if not millions) are flocking to the USA to live here. if this is such a bad place, why is that? ::::""The USA remains the country that most immigrants want to make their new home. In the IT sector, it remains the centre of most technological innovation, and it continues to enjoy the highest per-capita income in the world"".[www.workpermit.com] wow, i really do live in a poop hole huh (sarcasm)hmmm this one is quite long, sorry! (not really) """Moving To USA

If you are reading this section, then you are already contemplating moving to America. Continue reading to determine why you are making the most progressive decision of your life!

Firstly, USA has one of the largest South African Expat communities in the world. Why you ask? Well, most South Africans place Weather as the highest priority when determining where to immigrate. The US not only matches the South African climate but it has a state to match everyone�s needs. Ranging from Sunny California on the West Coast, to the snow-capped mountains in Colorado, to farm like living in Central Texas, to the Sunshine state of Florida on the East Coast.

Another common reason for clients wanting to start a new life in the US is the crime-free environment. If you are determined to give your children protected surroundings, where they can confidently look to their futures, then your days of being a nomad are limited. The US is one of the few countries in the world that boasts homes and rolling lawns without fences.

USA�s popularity is also the ever-attractive prospects of earning a stable currency. Added to that is the opportunity of unlimited earnings if you play within the legal US framework. On this note, immigration professionals should be employed to ensure that you make informed decisions, so you can justifiably reap all rewards owed to you. Inkorpa is the leading immigration consulting company in the US, for more information reference www.inkorpa.com.

Finally, what better peace of mind than to know that all your hard-earned capital will appreciate in value; that you are in a politically stable country and that you are free from the anxiety of a corrupt government siphoning your untapped wealth.

In a world where immigrants start 18% of all new small businesses, it is exciting to know you too will soon be able to contribute to this prosperous statistic. We will now discuss the various courses of actions for foreigners to become a resident of the United States of America."" www.kruispad.co.za... (is the main page, it seems to be a foreign site)

from south africa, u can change to eng tho.
well u can believe what u want, but the truth is, americans enjoy the most freedoms on earth and sure we arent PERFECT, no 1 is buddy but we have the best of everything and that mayb considered a snotty remark but i dont care-its the truth
-tootles

Originally posted by imAMERICAN

im not running away from anything, im not here to have arugments, im here to have intelligent posts with other intelligent people, if i want to have an argument, ill talk to a person face to face, not online where i have to constantly read posts and then type up a entire thing, its not worth it, and i dont need added stress of a computer argument ok? ""you make no sense trying to say your the big kid and can do whatever you want and we have to do what you say."" when did i say that huh? i never ever said that the usa is the "big kid" and can do what ever it wants and no 1 can stop us or w/e. ur putting words in my mouth, and thats completly childish. ""thats why you build a crap scout chopper?or a navy helicopter that sinks ?"" what the hell r u talking about may i ask? becuz the last time i checked, the usaf is pretty hi tech buddy, actually dont even bother, im not replying to this, and im not continuing this argument becuz its completly bs, dont talk about the health in the usa, our country has the best doctors in the world, and u sound like u only pay attention to the liberal bs cnn newsstation, and YES thousands (if not millions) are flocking to the USA to live here. if this is such a bad place, why is that? ::::""The USA remains the country that most immigrants want to make their new home. In the IT sector, it remains the centre of most technological innovation, and it continues to enjoy the highest per-capita income in the world"".[www.workpermit.com] wow, i really do live in a poop hole huh (sarcasm)hmmm this one is quite long, sorry! (not really) """Moving To USA

added stress? what stress can you get off a compter argument?
sure looks like it. dude why is everyone saying "thats childish" cant people not think of new sayings?
one thing about your IT thing ,japan has the biggest computer place not america.
hey one thing about imigration most of them are imagrateing cause its better than the world they lived like mexico?south america,no offense to them but the drug lords cause havoc there.
your actually saying you have the best of everything ,which is saying that we are inferior saying your the best and we should follow you.
also i suppose this is a exsample of your "liberal BS"?
America's health system is a tangled, highly fragmented web that often wastes resources by duplicating efforts, leaving unaccountable gaps in coverage, and failing to build on the strengths of all health professionals, says Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century, a new report by a committee of the Institute of Medicine. The report calls for immediate action to improve care -- in all aspects and for everyone -- over the next decade, and offers a comprehensive strategy to do so.
this is from the national acadimies advisors on nature science and engineer and medicine.
also 42.6million people in america were UNINSURED for medical insurance in 1999,also the USA is only country in the western world except from South america that doesnt provide a NHS.now telll me that is the best health system. also the best doctors? exsplain? you cant have the worlds best doctors in everyfield.also your ranked 26th in industrialised countries in infant mortalilty rates.exsplain?
althouhg i agree that you had the best response time the rest of the facts are shocking,ranked 54-55 in fairness of financial contributions? are these a good or bad sign i ask u?
your comanche? couldnt fire cause it crashes? sea knight transport? sinks and fills with sand? oh wait arent they BAD signs of an AF or what about the number of apaches dieing over kosovo?
crime free enviroments? there are more gun crimes there than most countries around the globe, murder is like a 5th page story.
the most freedoms? sure if you like liveing in a place where drunks can bear arms. the best of everything? yeah thats right , thats why you buy tech off countries. no one has the best tech , there are great tech but no best tech.
also last time i looked the american/british exchange rate was like what ,1 dollar to 0.555869 pounds, now working on this i would say liveing in britiain would get you better money.
also funny how this is the SECOND time you have said you are not going to reply.

Originally posted by devilwasp

your actually saying you have the best of everything ,which is saying that we are inferior saying your the best and we should follow you.
also i suppose this is a exsample of your "liberal BS"?

i said we have the best technology, how does that mean your inferior and we are the best and u should be following us? i DO think this country is the greatest, however i never ever said u were inferior or u should follow the u.s.a, your making stuff up. ofcourse i think my country is the greatest, i love my country, but it dont mean i think any1 is inferior or subhuman or w.e u wanna call it. and im not a liberal, i dont like liberals, and they will most likely be the downfall of my country.

Originally posted by devilwasp

America's health system is a tangled, highly fragmented web that often wastes resources by duplicating efforts, leaving unaccountable gaps in coverage, and failing to build on the strengths of all health professionals, says Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century, a new report by a committee of the Institute of Medicine. The report calls for immediate action to improve care -- in all aspects and for everyone -- over the next decade, and offers a comprehensive strategy to do so.
this is from the national acadimies advisors on nature science and engineer and medicine.
also 42.6million people in america were UNINSURED for medical insurance in 1999,also the USA is only country in the western world except from South america that doesnt provide a NHS.now telll me that is the best health system. also the best doctors? exsplain? you cant have the worlds best doctors in everyfield.also your ranked 26th in industrialised countries in infant mortalilty rates.exsplain?

sure our health system isnt perfect, nothing is ever PERFECT, but hopefully the right people will get elected this year and this can be resolved. but id rather have what we have here than this:


Here�s the latest attempt to somehow keep the ever-spiraling costs of free British health care under control.


Westcountry doctors are to be offered payments of ?100 for every patient they keep out of hospital, in a controversial drive to cut waiting lists.

The scheme, being pioneered by Torbay Primary Care Trust, is designed to encourage family doctors to be more proactive in dealing with the care of elderly patients and those with complex long-term health problems.

Supporters claim the initiative, which is due to begin within the next few days, will improve patient care and cut �unplanned� admissions to hospital by up to 15 per cent. The scheme, which could also slash primary care trust (PCT) bills for hospital treatment, has already attracted national attention, with around 40 PCTs across the country now considering similar initiatives.

But concerns have been raised that incentive payments to doctors could be seen as unethical and damage trust with patients who might feel clinical decisions were being influenced in an inappropriate way. The Torbay scheme will offer GP practices ?75 for every patient with a chronic illness for whom they develop a detailed care plan. They will receive an extra ?25 if the patient does not have to go to hospital.

You might be surprised to learn this, but here in America we have a system very similar to this one, and it�s already in place. It�s been in place for hundreds of years. It�s called the free market, and its power to keep costs down are unmatched by any government program in history.

See, in the UK everyone is entitled to free health care. Therefore, every time someone gets a sniffle, they go to the doctor. Why not, it�s free. And their doctor might send them to be admitted at a hospital. Why not, it�s free. Costs are increasing, and waiting lists are growing, all because there is a finite amount of resources and an infinate demand for them. This is the very nature of systems where prices and/or availability are artificially controlled. (Housing shortages in rent controlled areas are another great example.)

In America people, like with any other expense, weigh the costs to the benefits of going to the doctor. Is it worth paying a $10 co-pay (or more) to get seen for my sniffle? Is it worth paying $30 (or more) for a prescription to take care of this sniffle? Or should I just take the day off work, swallow a couple of aspirin, and stay in bed for free?

It is this cost/benefit analysis on the part of the consumer that keeps people away from the doctor in America. You can say whatever you like about how heartless this is, but the fact is that if the goal is to keep costs down this is the best way of doing it.

So, in a novel example of thinking outside the box, the British are trying to do a short of top-down version of the free market incentive. Since they can�t to anything to decrease the demand for services, they are trying to financially incentivise the decision-makers in the British system (the doctors) into not sending people into the hospital. The goal? To reduce costs and burden on the health care infrastructure.

Say what you like about the benefits of socialized health care, but as with all human endeavors one thing is plainly clear. When you tell someone that something is (a) their right, and (b) at no cost to them, they will use it at every concevable opportunity. And in a world with finite resources this is not a good thing.

OR

It�s another socialized medicine success!


A 21-year-old man died of appendicitis after he was refused treatment at an emergency clinic because he didn�t have his provincial health card with him.

Gerald Augustin complained of stomach pains on Thursday but the receptionist at the St-Andre medical centre told him he had to return home to get his health card. He didn�t make it back to the clinic in Montreal�s east end.

About four hours later, a friend alerted police and called an ambulance for the man, who had a fatal attack of appendicitis in his apartment. He was pronounced dead in hospital.

Rouslene Augustin, administrator at the St-Andre clinic, said the man didn�t appear to have any urgent symptoms when he came to the clinic.

�If this guy was an emergency case, we would accept him if he had his card or not,� she said.

�I don�t see what we did wrong. I�m not defending the clinic, we just followed the rules."

If you like the service you get at the DMV or Post Office, you�re going to love government run health care. (he's reffering to the DMV and post office in usa, (lol) (dont know if the one in the UK is as annoying)

OR


Today�s socialized health care success comes to you from Quebec.


Nearly 1,150 hip-surgery patients in Quebec will be tested for hepatitis and HIV after a commonly used surgical tool was improperly sterilized at 12 hospitals, the provincial Health Department said Tuesday.

A department spokeswoman said the recall could be expanded as the province continues its investigation into the handling of a metal reamer used during hip-replacement surgery. �About 40 hospitals use this tool,� spokeswoman Dominique Breton said in an interview.

Okay, sounds like simply a case of human error, right?

The sterilization alert is the second in Quebec this year.

Last month, the government asked more than 1,100 people to be tested for HIV and hepatitis after a woman who practised acupuncture illegally for 25 years failed to follow proper cleaning techniques.

The Quebec cases followed a number of similar health scares in Ontario that led to an audit of hospital sterilization techniques in that province.

The Canadian Healthcare Association, which represents provincial hospital organizations, said health-care budget cuts have led to a decline in cleaning procedures. [Emphasis added]

What? You mean that when the government runs your health care the quality of service goes down? I�m shocked, I tell you� shocked! How can Michael Moore explain this? I mean, I thought everyone in Canada loved each other so much that they would gladly tax themselves into oblivion to provide for every single medical need. How can this be?

(those last statements r from the articles author not me)

OR

Living in America
God bless the greedy, unequal, capitalist American medical system.


An experimental vaccine wiped out lung cancer in some patients and slowed its spread in others in a small but promising study, researchers say.

Three patients injected with the vaccine, GVAX, had no recurrence of lung cancer for more than three years afterward, according to the study of 43 people with the most common form of the disease, non-small cell lung cancer.

The findings were published in Wednesday�s Journal of the National Cancer Institute (news - web sites). The research was funded in part by Cell Genesys, a pharmaceutical company that hopes to produce the vaccine.

The vaccine, developed by researchers at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, is years away from reaching the market, if ever. The researchers hope to apply for Food and Drug Administration approval in three years.

�The results are very promising for patients with non-small (cell) lung cancer, which is frequently resistant to chemotherapy,� said Dr. John Nemunaitis, a Baylor oncologist who led the study.

Let us not forget, dear friends, that the World Health Organization ranked the United States �37th in the world in overall health system performance and 72nd on population health in its 2000 WHO report.� I�m curious just which of the 36 countries with superior systems to ours are leading the world in development of artificial hearts and cures for lung cancer. Thirty years from now, when these treatments have migrated from the world of science fiction to routine procedures, the WHO will undoubtedly find some other criteria with which to impugn what is far and away the greatest health care system in the world.

Well, i REALLY HOPE this isnt what you think the U.S' healthcare system should turn to, socialized medicine which if im not mistaken is what is practiced in your country, Scotland, cuz ur in the U.K. well either way, compared to that medical system, im quite happy with the one here.

Originally posted by devilwasp
your comanche? couldnt fire cause it crashes? sea knight transport? sinks and fills with sand? oh wait arent they BAD signs of an AF or what about the number of apaches dieing over kosovo?

so, becuz of some crashes or what not, the entire airforce is a piece of garbage, is that what ur insinuating, the truth is the United States Air Force has the most sophisticated and technologically advanced aircraft in the world today. Combined with the best-trained pilots, ground crews, and other support personnel, the Air Force ensures air superiority and support for virtually every mission undertaken by the U.S. Military.


but in kosovo::

In March 1999 the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) began a campaign to halt Serbian repression of people of Albanian descent living in the province of Kosovo in Serbia. The NATO campaign lasted 78 days and consisted almost entirely of the use of air power. The U.S. Air Force provided a significant portion of the air power used in the bombing campaign, including B-2 bombers that flew nonstop from their bases in the United States to their targets in southeastern Europe, refueling in flight and returning to the United States without ever landing. While fixed military targets were relatively easy to hit, the Serbian army dispersed its force in the field, making it much more difficult to destroy. Rugged terrain, poor weather, and the decision to keep NATO aircraft flying at altitudes above the range of Serbian air defenses reduced significantly the amount of damage that the air campaign actually inflicted on the Serbian army.


The U.S. Air Force stands as the most powerful air force in the world. The Air Force has roughly 3,700 operational aircraft of all types, including bombers, cargo transports, ground-attack-fighter interceptors, and reserve-trainer aircraft. The Air Force also has a substantial number of helicopters for various missions such as search and rescue, cargo transport, and special operations.

In general the aircraft used by the Air Force are considered excellent aircraft. However, other countries have some aircraft that can match the quality and firepower of the Air Force�s top planes. The Russian-made MiG-29 Fulcrum, for example, is generally regarded as capable of taking on any fighter in close air combat, including the U.S. Air Force�s F-15 and F-16. The new F-22 is designed to be superior to the MiG-29. No other country�s air force can match the combination of size, readiness, and training of the U.S. Air Force. Pilot training in the U.S. Air Force is extensive and realistic, and includes dissimilar combat training, in which the most modern U.S. aircraft are used to simulate dogfights against enemy aircraft. On average, U.S. Air Force pilots fly more than 200 hours per year, giving them more training time than air force pilots in any other country.

The Air Force has enough nuclear weapons to destroy any enemy many times over. Its ICBMs are accurate enough to demolish all but the most protected targets. Other countries, including Russia and China, also have substantial nuclear stockpiles, and these could destroy much of the United States in an all-out nuclear war. The U.S. nuclear strategy is based on maintaining a large and diversified arsenal to deter any such attack.


so please dont say becuz some choppers went down or what not, that the
usaf is a bad airforce, because it isnt.

Originally posted by devilwasp
crime free enviroments? there are more gun crimes there than most countries around the globe, murder is like a 5th page story.
the most freedoms? sure if you like liveing in a place where drunks can bear arms. the best of everything? yeah thats right , thats why you buy tech off countries. no one has the best tech , there are great tech but no best tech.
also last time i looked the american/british exchange rate was like what ,1 dollar to 0.555869 pounds, now working on this i would say liveing in britiain would get you better money.
also funny how this is the SECOND time you have said you are not going to reply.

first off, exchange rates are constantly changing, and it doesnt really mean much, crime rates, WASHINGTON (AP) � The nation's crime rate last year held steady at the lowest levels since the government began surveying crime victims in 1973, the Justice Department reported Sunday.
The study was the latest contribution to a decade-long trend in which violent crime as measured by victim surveys has fallen by 55% and property crime by 49%. That has included a 14% drop in violent crime from 2000-2001 to 2002-2003.

"The rates are the lowest experienced in the last 30 years," Justice Department statistician Shannan Catalona said in the report. "Crime rates have stabilized."


---There is a widely perpitrated myth out there that the US has a higher crime rate then major Western European Nations. According to Interpol and the FBI this is not the fact.

Per 100,000
* 4161 - US
* 7736 - Germany
* 6941 - France
* 9927 - England and Wales

If you exclude blacks from the Murder Statistics the United States has a lower murder rate then Germany and France(I'm not infering that Black are inherantly evil, it has to do with welfare policies, racial seperatism, etc)


---A few months ago a report which estimates the crime rate in Europe showed the UK has the highest incident of crime in the western world. From physical attack(rape,muggings,assualt) to petty theft and burglary, no country among western nations including the usa out ranked the UK. Its gotten to the point were its not safe to allow your child to play in his/her front yard for fear the neighborhood bullies will assualt your kid.This is a situation most Americans have never experienced. What contributing factors has caused the crime rate in the UK to spiral out of control? What steps have been taken to solve the problem and why is crime such a big problem in small uk cities? We normally expect to see some crime in large cities but its unusual for small towns in the States to experience high crime rates. Towns in the States that have populations of 500,000 you could leave your front door unlocked and fill safe no one will try to enter your home. Why is that not the case in much of the UK?


and the right to bear arms is important, it is, the right to defend ourselves- against lunatics...theres nothing wrong with the rite to bear arms. oh and sure u can live in the U.K and make a tiny bit more money, but ud lose out in healthcare, (some doctors i hear eh) and statistically its more dangerous. well thats enough for today, im done, and ill reply as much as i want to. but the fact is that this is really getting annoying.

your saying your tech is the best so we must not have the best tech meaning inferior tech.
ok ill not say "your saying" your implying those things.
why will they bring your country down?
yes we have every spiraling costs BUT atleast we help people and dont send them away because they dont have insurance.
those are EXSPERIMENTAL things never heard of that word?
yeah like we dont acutally research cancer cures here?
also we actually do care for the local population. IF you looked or lived here you would notice that most patients in scotland get treated rather fast. much faster than most countries.
also he other countries ahead of you probably most of the western world.
no i say this because you bomb friendly targets all the time. also your best trained pilots? are these the same pilots that bomb a civie wedding?
or make british troops paint thier vehicles orange to stop gtting bombed?
yes i do know what happened in kosovo.
wow 3700 planes! look at china's numer they have 4500 fighters in thier navy bases on the south china sea alone.
oh wow nukes they aint a show of power just a show of how thier country is dependant on the MAD plan.
whoa there where the hell did you get these results?
these cant be true or the whole of the whole of england and wales would be in anorchay
and by crimes they have over you ,know what it is? small crimes like drunk and disoderly.
last time i went to many cities down south the biggest crime was a slashing and that was it they happen like mabye 1 in every 100 attacks?
also we have practically no gun crimes here because we have litlle amount of guns here and the only places you can get them are mostly under military gaurd.
also unlike your police we actually acount for every bullet fired thus keeping our polices forces in check about gun control.
also lose out on health care? that may be so for you but what about the every day american?
also one thing i have to ask do YOU leave your front door unlocked? frankly i would not think so.
also yes this is anoying we can battle this out till the ends of time and will not move further than an asmahtic ant. i think a mod should del this thread.




[edit on 15-9-2004 by devilwasp]

InAmerican, if you are going to copy and paste, please provide us with a link so we can study the articles you're refferring to ourselves. Dont say you didn't, as your grammar and spelling suddenly improve in certain sections of your post.

I will reply in more detail to the crap you posted, but at the moment i have a job to do, but i leave you with this:

A Time Line of Recent Worldwide School Shootings
Feb. 2, 1996
Moses Lake, Wash. Two students and one teacher killed, one other wounded when 14-year-old Barry Loukaitis opened fire on his algebra class.
March 13, 1996
Dunblane, Scotland 16 children and one teacher killed at Dunblane Primary School by Thomas Hamilton, who then killed himself. 10 others wounded in attack.
Feb. 19, 1997
Bethel, Alaska Principal and one student killed, two others wounded by Evan Ramsey, 16.
March 1997
Sanaa, Yemen Eight people (six students and two others) at two schools killed by Mohammad Ahman al-Naziri.
Oct. 1, 1997
Pearl, Miss. Two students killed and seven wounded by Luke Woodham, 16, who was also accused of killing his mother. He and his friends were said to be outcasts who worshiped Satan.
Dec. 1, 1997
West Paducah, Ky. Three students killed, five wounded by Michael Carneal, 14, as they participated in a prayer circle at Heath High School.
Dec. 15, 1997
Stamps, Ark. Two students wounded. Colt Todd, 14, was hiding in the woods when he shot the students as they stood in the parking lot.
March 24, 1998
Jonesboro, Ark. Four students and one teacher killed, ten others wounded outside as Westside Middle School emptied during a false fire alarm. Mitchell Johnson, 13, and Andrew Golden, 11, shot at their classmates and teachers from the woods.
April 24, 1998
Edinboro, Pa. One teacher, John Gillette, killed, two students wounded at a dance at James W. Parker Middle School. Andrew Wurst, 14, was charged.
May 19, 1998
Fayetteville, Tenn. One student killed in the parking lot at Lincoln County High School three days before he was to graduate. The victim was dating the ex-girlfriend of his killer, 18-year-old honor student Jacob Davis.
May 21, 1998
Springfield, Ore. Two students killed, 22 others wounded in the cafeteria at Thurston High School by 15-year-old Kip Kinkel. Kinkel had been arrested and released a day earlier for bringing a gun to school. His parents were later found dead at home.
June 15, 1998
Richmond, Va. One teacher and one guidance counselor wounded by a 14-year-old boy in the school hallway.
April 20, 1999
Littleton, Colo. 14 students (including killers) and one teacher killed, 23 others wounded at Columbine High School in the nation's deadliest school shooting. Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, had plotted for a year to kill at least 500 and blow up their school. At the end of their hour-long rampage, they turned their guns on themselves.
April 28, 1999
Taber, Alberta, Canada One student killed, one wounded at W. R. Myers High School in first fatal high school shooting in Canada in 20 years. The suspect, a 14-year-old boy, had dropped out of school after he was severely ostracized by his classmates.
May 20, 1999
Conyers, Ga. Six students injured at Heritage High School by Thomas Solomon, 15, who was reportedly depressed after breaking up with his girlfriend.
Nov. 19, 1999
Deming, N.M. Victor Cordova Jr., 12, shot and killed Araceli Tena, 13, in the lobby of Deming Middle School.
Dec. 6, 1999
Fort Gibson, Okla. Four students wounded as Seth Trickey, 13, opened fire with a 9mm semiautomatic handgun at Fort Gibson Middle School.
Dec. 7, 1999
Veghel, Netherlands One teacher and three students wounded by a 17-year-old student.
Feb. 29, 2000
Mount Morris Township, Mich. Six-year-old Kayla Rolland shot dead at Buell Elementary School near Flint, Mich. The assailant was identified as a six-year-old boy with a .32-caliber handgun.
March 2000
Branneburg, Germany One teacher killed by a 15-year-old student, who then shot himself. The shooter has been in a coma ever since.
March 10, 2000
Savannah, Ga. Two students killed by Darrell Ingram, 19, while leaving a dance sponsored by Beach High School.
May 26, 2000
Lake Worth, Fla. One teacher, Barry Grunow, shot and killed at Lake Worth Middle School by Nate Brazill, 13, with .25-caliber semiautomatic pistol on the last day of classes.
Sept. 26, 2000
New Orleans, La. Two students wounded with the same gun during a fight at Woodson Middle School.
Jan. 17, 2001
Baltimore, Md. One student shot and killed in front of Lake Clifton Eastern High School.
Jan. 18, 2001
Jan, Sweden One student killed by two boys, ages 17 and 19.
March 5, 2001
Santee, Calif. Two killed and 13 wounded by Charles Andrew Williams, 15, firing from a bathroom at Santana High School.
March 7, 2001
Williamsport, Pa. Elizabeth Catherine Bush, 14, wounded student Kimberly Marchese in the cafeteria of Bishop Neumann High School; she was depressed and frequently teased.
March 22, 2001
Granite Hills, Calif. One teacher and three students wounded by Jason Hoffman, 18, at Granite Hills High School. A policeman shot and wounded Hoffman.
March 30, 2001
Gary, Ind. One student killed by Donald R. Burt, Jr., a 17-year-old student who had been expelled from Lew Wallace High School.
Nov. 12, 2001
Caro, Mich. Chris Buschbacher, 17, took two hostages at the Caro Learning Center before killing himself.
Jan. 15, 2002
New York, N.Y. A teenager wounded two students at Martin Luther King Jr. High School.
Feb. 19, 2002
Freising, Germany Two killed in Eching by a man at the factory from which he had been fired; he then traveled to Freising and killed the headmaster of the technical school from which he had been expelled. He also wounded another teacher before killing himself.
April 26, 2002
Erfurt, Germany 13 teachers, two students, and one policeman killed, ten wounded by Robert Steinhaeuser, 19, at the Johann Gutenberg secondary school. Steinhaeuser then killed himself.
April 29, 2002
Vlasenica, Bosnia-Herzegovina One teacher killed, one wounded by Dragoslav Petkovic, 17, who then killed himself.
April 14, 2003
New Orleans, La. One 15-year-old killed, and three students wounded at John McDonogh High School by gunfire from four teenagers (none were students at the school). The motive was gang-related.
April 24, 2003
Red Lion, Pa. James Sheets, 14, killed principal Eugene Segro of Red Lion Area Junior High School before killing himself.
Sept. 24, 2003
Cold Spring, Minn.

www.infoplease.com...


Absoulutley amazing isnt it.... where apparently us british can't let our children outside to play (have no idea where you got this from, as it is utter crap, I have a daughter myself), you Americans can't even let them go to school without them getting shot up! Most of the above happened in YOUR country, and now you have relaxed gun laws!


Liberal BS? I was under the impression America was a freedom loving Democracy? Shouldn't this be inherently liberal, or is the American style of Democracy "Freedom to do what you want, as long as we say its ok", sounds like a bunch of bollocks to me chap!



[edit on 16-9-2004 by stumason]

Also, lets compare two major indices that the WHO uses to sompare healthcare:

The US:

Infant mortality rate:
total: 6.63 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 5.91 deaths/1,000 live births (2004 est.)
male: 7.31 deaths/1,000 live births
Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 77.43 years
male: 74.63 years
female: 80.36 years (2004 est.)


The UK:
Infant mortality rate:
total: 5.22 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 4.58 deaths/1,000 live births (2004 est.)
male: 5.83 deaths/1,000 live births
Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 78.27 years
male: 75.84 years
female: 80.83 years (2004 est.)

CIA


Hmmm..... our NHS is failing is it? Certainly not from my perspsective, or the CIA's either by the look of it...perhaps you could tell me where you are getting you info from InAmerican? Mine are from credible sources, what about you?

Originally posted by stumason
Also, lets compare two major indices that the WHO uses to sompare healthcare:

The US:

Infant mortality rate:
total: 6.63 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 5.91 deaths/1,000 live births (2004 est.)
male: 7.31 deaths/1,000 live births
Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 77.43 years
male: 74.63 years
female: 80.36 years (2004 est.)


The UK:
Infant mortality rate:
total: 5.22 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 4.58 deaths/1,000 live births (2004 est.)
male: 5.83 deaths/1,000 live births
Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 78.27 years
male: 75.84 years
female: 80.83 years (2004 est.)

CIA


Hmmm..... our NHS is failing is it? Certainly not from my perspsective, or the CIA's either by the look of it...perhaps you could tell me where you are getting you info from InAmerican? Mine are from credible sources, what about you?

ur kidding me rite? r u saying becuz the AVERAGE statistics show 77.43 life expectancy to 78.27 shows healthcare #? its NOT EVEN A YEAR, give me a break would u plz? all of ur charts are not even a year apart or a year at the most. i cant believe your stooping to this level to try and prove me wrong or w/e. i already said our healthcare system isnt perfect, it needs work, but when you dont have a socialized medicne the quality of doctors is alot higher, because doctors who are getting paid more, have more incentive to do better, and thats the truth. and i wasnt the one who brought up the liberal bs thing, that was devil wasp


theres always 2 sides to every argument: as u can see, in this bbc.co.uk article,


The Home Office has dimissed an American television report's claims that Britain is more violent than the US as a "simplistic comparison".
The TV report, which followed news of an apparent drug rape of an American teacher in London, described the streets and shopping centres of Britain as a "battleground" of crime.

CBS News called the UK one of the most violent urban societies in the western world, where people were more likely to be burgled, twice as likely to be robbed and two-and-a-half times more likely to be assaulted than in America.



Charles Clarke: report is "absolute nonsense"

But the Home Office has hit back at the statistics, claiming that the average American is seven times more likely to be murdered than their British counterpart and 60 times more likely to be shot.

The row came as government sources confirmed a crime summit will be held at Downing Street next week at which Prime Minister Tony Blair will urge police to cut violence and disorder.

It is reported that chief constables from the Metropolitan, West Midlands, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire forces will be given �20m to crack down on street crime.

'Trivialised comparisons'

Home Office Minister Charles Clarke dismissed the CBS News report as "absolute nonsense", saying the way offences were defined and collated varied from country to country.

He told the BBC's Newsnight programme: "Violent crime is a very serious issue and needs to be very seriously addressed, but I don't think it's helped by the trivialised comparisons the CBS engaged in."



Mayhem is on the way

CBS News
Home Office figures showed the murder rate in the US in 1998 was 6.3 per 100,000 people compared with 1.4 per 100,000 in England and Wales.

The murder rate in London is 2.9 per 100,000 compared with 8.6 per 100,000 in New York and 49.15 per 100,000 in Washington DC.

A report produced by the US Department of Justice in 1998 would appear to support the Home Office's claims.

It shows the murder rate was 5.7 times higher in the US than England and Wales and the rape rate was about three times higher.



Figures show people are much more likely to get shot in New York than London

The report also showed firearms were used in 68% of murders in the US compared with 7% in England and Wales, and in 41% of robberies in America against 5% in England and Wales.


([imAMERICAN writing this]: id like to point out here to u, americans have right to bear arms and purchase from anywhere, which would explain that obviously AND that list of shootings since anyone can buy a gun here)

But the rates for assault, burglary and motor vehicle theft were all lower in America than in England and Wales.

Americans watching the CBS report, which was also shown on Sky News, were presented with an alarming picture of Britain.

CBS News anchorman Dan Rather said: "Now, like the US, the UK has a crime problem. And believe it or not, except for murder, theirs is worse than ours."

He promised that: "Mayhem is on the way."


Popular spots like Covent Garden are safe, say tourism officials

News of the report was not welcomed by British tourism officials, who maintain that the country is still a safe place to visit.

Last year 3.9 million US visitors came to Britain and this figure is expected to top four million this year.

A statement from the London Tourist Board said the CBS report presented "an image of crime in Britain which is distinctly at odds with London's reputation as one of the safest, friendliest cities in the world".

The board and the British Tourist Authority said they would monitor whether the story had an impact on visitor numbers.

so u see, even the news medias, are conflicted, and this argument has gone on long enough.

ps: yah i did copy and paste from websites, i dont rele deny, that, sorry for not posting all the sources, but heres the source for this one news.bbc.co.uk...

also, the statement about not being able to go outside was not from me, but from the author of that article.

well thats it, im tired.

bah this was another article i found on that same british site, i glanced threw it-u mite find it interesting, either way. w/e :


Serious crime rates in the United States have dropped for the eighth consecutive year according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
The numbers of serious crimes reported to police fell in 1999 by 7% compared to the previous year.

Both Republicans and Democrats claimed the fall was a result of their policies on crime.

While welcoming the fall in the crime rate, US President Bill Clinton called for further gun control measures to bring the rate down even more.

Crime falls across the board

The FBI report showed that all seven major types of crime were down in all regions of the US. Crime was also down is types of areas - the suburbs, rural areas and in cities of all sizes.




The violent crimes of murder, rape, armed robbery and aggravated assault were down a combined 7%.
The property crimes of burglary, auto theft and larceny were also down a combined 7%, led by an 11% drop in burglaries.

US Attorney-General Janet Reno said this was not a time to get complacent.

"Let's try harder. We must redouble our efforts by providing alternatives to crime as well as tough enforcement," Ms Reno said.

Claiming the credit

Both Democrats and Republicans pointed to measures on crime that they had sponsored.

President Bill Clinton said: "The report confirms that our anti-crime strategy - more police officers on the beat, fewer illegal guns and violent criminals on the street - is having a powerful impact."

US crime facts
7% overall fall in crime rate
Clinton administration put extra 100,000 police on streets
Nearly 12 children killed daily by gunfire
Murder rate up in New York

Mr Clinton pushed through funding for 100,000 more local police officers and passed the Brady law, which requires background checks for gun purchasers.

But he added that gunfire continued to claim the lives of an average of slightly less than 12 children daily in the US.

The President called on Congress to "pass common sense gun-safety measures to keep guns out of the wrong hands."

The chairman of the House Judiciary Crime Subcommittee, Republican Senator Bill McCollum, highlighted a Republican-sponsored law which he said had induced 27 states to impose longer prison terms in exchange for federal money to build prisons.

Commentators have said the lower crime rates were helped by a booming economy.

There are also signs that the falling crime figures may be bottoming out. In New York, the number of murders actually rose from 633 to 671.

The FBI will compiled a more comprehensive and detailed survey of crime in the US in 1999 in October.

Yeah, Britain is violent, and we may end up in a fight on friday night (Bonus!), but we wont run the risk of being shot everytime we piss someone off. I would rather end up with a black eye than dead...........

The truth is your perceptions are fuelled by an american media known for its sensationalist, and if we are going to be truthful, jingoistic, patronising and biased reporting.

And why are you accusing me of stooping to a low level? i am using info provided by YOUR CIA! Our healthcare is free, and we have high quality doctors. Your the stooping to the lowest common denominator by saying that because your doctors get paid more they are better! Thats an insult to every doctor around the world! So what if they are paid more, i could grab a local GP from darkest Africa, and pay him 500K a year, but that wouldn't make him any better than a doctor in the UK or US would it!

Our healthcare is World Class, and people come from all around the world for medical treatment, as it is cheaper (even if you have to pay) and of a high quality. We have a choice here in the UK, we can get treatment on the NHS, emergency or not. But if we would prefer, we can go private, and get treated quicker (not better as it is the same doctors). But even so we pay nowhere near what you guys pay for medical treatment. I have private healthcare myself, which again is free as my company pays for it, but I have never used it as I find the NHS to be just as good and reliable,. Doesn't that say something, that even given the choice to go private, myself and others still choose to use the NHS! Most people in the UK will have some sort of healthcare with their company, but they still use the NHS! Why? Because it is high quality, state provided medical treatment.

Wow! A Government that thinks for the people instead of Industry! Bugger me, theres a thought........................

[edit on 17-9-2004 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason
Yeah, Britain is violent, and we may end up in a fight on friday night (Bonus!), but we wont run the risk of being shot everytime we piss someone off. I would rather end up with a black eye than dead...........

lol, not every1 here is packing, cept in the ghetto mayb, but i guess all those deaths are becuz of the guns rite?

Originally posted by stumason
The truth is your perceptions are fuelled by an american media known for its sensationalist, and if we are going to be truthful, jingoistic, patronising and biased reporting.

yeah we do have a biased liberal media here, its pathetic, but my perceptions arent being fuelled by it or blinded by it.

Originally posted by stumason
And why are you accusing me of stooping to a low level? i am using info provided by YOUR CIA! Our healthcare is free, and we have high quality doctors. Your the stooping to the lowest common denominator by saying that because your doctors get paid more they are better! Thats an insult to every doctor around the world!

im saying u stoop to a low level, not by using the CIA resource, but by posting very minimal difference health statistics and saying ur health system is way better. yeah u do have high quality doctors in UK becuz of this: Also, in some cases, doctors are so well paid in both systems that prestige is often more important to them than remuneration. This is very much the case in the United Kingdom where private medicine is seen as less prestigious than public medicine by much of the population. As a result, the best doctors tend to spend the majority of their time working for the public system, even though they may also do some work for private healthcare providers. The British in particular tend to use private healthcare to avoid waiting lists rather than because they believe that they will receive better care from it. (from a sci project research site, this is the site, www.all-science-fair-projects.com... it has a research paper on this subject in there)

Originally posted by stumason
So what if they are paid more, i could grab a local GP from darkest Africa, and pay him 500K a year, but that wouldn't make him any better than a doctor in the UK or US would it!

maybe not getting a doctor from any old place, but doctors who work in the u.s generally make alot of money and have an incentive to do better. thats the truth, and u dont have to believe me.

Originally posted by stumason
Our healthcare is World Class, and people come from all around the world for medical treatment, as it is cheaper (even if you have to pay) and of a high quality. We have a choice here in the UK, we can get treatment on the NHS, emergency or not. But if we would prefer, we can go private, and get treated quicker (not better as it is the same doctors). But even so we pay nowhere near what you guys pay for medical treatment. I have private healthcare myself, which again is free as my company pays for it, but I have never used it as I find the NHS to be just as good and reliable,. Doesn't that say something, that even given the choice to go private, myself and others still choose to use the NHS! Most people in the UK will have some sort of healthcare with their company, but they still use the NHS! Why? Because it is high quality, state provided medical treatment.

never said ur healthcare wasnt, good. dont forget, people all over the world come here for healthcare also. heres a little thing i found on google. written by a cnn money writer:

Myths of American healthcare

Our great healthcare debate is driven by a few fundemental ideas that turn out to be wrong.
October 13, 2003: 11:32 AM EDT
By Pat Regnier, Money Magazine



NEW YORK (Money Magazine) - After nine months of living in London, I should have been in the habit of first looking right, not left, when jaywalking. Maybe I was distracted that afternoon by the view of St. Paul's Cathedral across the street.

In any case, it certainly wasn't the taxi driver's fault when I stepped directly in front of his cab. My body rolled over his hood and then slid sideways across the windshield before dropping limply onto the curb.

This certainly looked dramatic, but was I seriously hurt? Though I was able to stand up and walk--in jammed City traffic, the cab couldn't have been going faster than 15 mph -- I was too shaken to say for sure. The driver insisted on taking me to the nearest big hospital, St. Bartholomew's.

Founded in 1123, Barts, like most British hospitals, is run by the free, taxpayer-supported National Health Service. It boasts an 18th-century inner courtyard and a grand staircase adorned with paintings by Hogarth. What it does not have is an emergency room.

The cabbie suggested that I check in at the hospital's minor-injuries ward. Dazed and smarting, I found the ward's dreary waiting room but couldn't see any doctors or even a receptionist. Instead, on a small desk by the door, there was a telephone and a note with a number to call for help.

America's healthcare mythology


� Myth: We spend too much



� Myth: More equals better



� Myth: We're in this together




I dialed and told the voice on the line that I had just been hit by a slow-moving taxi, and that I thought it might be a good idea for a doctor to look me over. The voice took my name and told me to have a seat. More than two hours and six out-of-date issues of Hello! later, a nurse came to fetch me. After I proved that I could wiggle my fingers and wave my arms over my head, she said that an X-ray would be a waste of money and sent me home. I never saw a doctor.

For an American, or at least a well-insured one like me, the austerity of the NHS was an eye-opener. So today when I listen to politicians and pundits debating what to do about the rising cost of health care in this country -- health spending already eats up more than 14 percent of our gross domestic product -- I can't help but think back to my afternoon at Barts. But what exactly is the moral of the story?

I can think of two possibilities. The first is pretty obvious: If Barts is what a cheaper, more accessible health-care system looks like, I'm certain that most Americans would reject it hands down.

The second possibility is that we Americans are wrong. Perhaps my shock at Barts' parsimonious standard of care just shows that well-off Americans, with our glass-palace hospitals and an MRI for every tennis elbow, have grown a touch decadent. I wasn't really hurt, and if I had been, I could have demanded that the taxi driver take me to a hospital with an E.R. I ultimately got the care I needed, at zero cost to myself and minimal cost to the British taxpayer. It wasn't pretty -- in fact, it was a little scary -- but an economist would call it an optimal outcome.

At least one in seven Americans has no health coverage right now. No one with a conscience thinks that's okay. But even if most of us would like to lend a hand to the uninsured, we are justly nervous about giving the government the power to boot Grandpa out of an intensive-care bed when keeping him there is no longer cost-effective.

We've been locked into what University of British Columbia economist Robert Evans calls the "painful prescription" school of thinking about health care, a frightening rhetoric of hard choices best captured by those Clinton-era "Harry and Louise" commercials.

Having lived there, I know from experience that the Britain's barebones National Health System pretty much works. In fact, Britons live a bit longer than we do. Still, I'd never willingly trade in my Aetna card for the NHS.

After digging deep into the economics of health care, I've come to see that both sides of the debate, the free-marketeers as much as the single-payer socialists, often misunderstand the problems we're facing. Perhaps we're all framing the alternatives too starkly. We don't have to choose between opulence for the insured and heartless rationing for all.

There are three big ideas driving America's healthcare debate. All three turn out to be wrong.


Healthcare myth: We're in this together

Not everyone really wants lower healthcare costs. Lots of people benefit when you pay more.
October 13, 2003: 11:29 AM EDT
By Pat Regnier, Money Magazine



NEW YORK (Money Magazine) - Fisher's study has an obvious appeal: We don't have to compromise. In theory, we can be cost-efficient, save enough to cover more Americans and actually improve our health. In practice, this won't be easy.

Fisher and his Dartmouth colleagues have a lot of intriguing ideas, like getting more doctors into group practices so they can better coordinate care, and paying more of them salaries instead of on a fee-for-service basis. Meanwhile, med schools and think tanks across the U.S. are setting up "evidence-based medicine" programs to help doctors get better at weighing the costs and benefits of drugs, tests and surgery. All of this could help. But we're kidding ourselves if we think affordable health care for all can come without a fight.

America's healthcare mythology


� Myths of American healthcare



� Myth: We spend too much



� Myth: More equals better



� Myth: We're in this together




"The typical rhetoric is that everyone is struggling against higher costs, that it is an external problem we are collectively fighting against," Evans, the Canadian economist, told me recently. "That's completely wrong." Health-care providers, from your local doctor to the directors of Pfizer, have obvious reasons to want costs to go up. Even for-profit insurers, which pay a lot of the bills, should be agnostic on cost trends, as long as they can negotiate better deals with providers than their competitors do and can command premiums high enough to offset the inflation. In fact, insurers may benefit from rising prices, which make their product all the more essential.

I'll bet former Oxford Health Plans CEO Norman Payson, whose 2002 compensation totaled $76 million, including stock options, isn't losing sleep over that 14 percent figure.

The only people who really should worry about rising costs are the ones who ultimately pay. In single-payer systems like Britain's or Canada's, that's a health minister who has to stick to his budget, and he has an enormous incentive to push back against rising costs.

But in the U.S., where 46 percent of health care is paid for by a hodgepodge of government programs, and the rest of the tab is borne by thousands of employer-based plans, charities and patients paying out of pocket, most payers simply try to dump the burden of higher prices onto one another. Just as insurers respond to higher hospital bills with bigger premiums for employers, companies turn around and ask their employees for higher co-pays. But even that doesn't really dampen demand. "Suppose we had insurance to buy automobiles," jokes Stanford economist Victor Fuchs. "We'd be riding around in Lexuses, even if we had a 20 percent co-pay."

Except, of course, for those of us who cannot afford insurance. And there are 41 million who do not have health insurance and millions more who cannot buy enough of it. The market alone won't fix this--to make a change, Americans will have to resort to politics. We must either share more of the burden as taxpayers or get the government to push harder on providers to make health care cheaper. Or a little of both. But we're a rich country. We should be able to deal everybody in and still end up with more choices and better technology than a patient at Barts would ever dream of. In short, our wealth can buy us more than new hospitals. It also ought to buy us the flexibility to experiment in our public policy. And maybe even the freedom to be generous.

wow, we are way off topic arent we....

Just a tad! See where nationalistic pride can get in the way (both sides)? Good post by the way, nice to have an objective point of view by that chap who got hit by the taxi, he has seen both side of the fence so knows the score.
Shame he got taken to St Barts though, he could have gone to one of a dozen large hospitals with a well equipped A&E unit, but got taken to what is essentially a teaching hospital (a very good one, but one that does specialist care, not emergencies).

St Barts

Anyway, back on too topic (if I can remember what that is). The reason for the antagonism from non US citizens on this thread is because of the thread itself. A self proclaimed dominance of the world, which we feel is unjustified. Without the friends America has (including the French, Russians and Germans as well!!), America could very well find itself alone and vunerable, and it would be nice if some appreciation could be shown instead of disdain and arrogance.

You have to remember that without all these countries doing business with you, things could change very quickly. imagine if we decided to all become friends with China over night, the US would lose a vast amount of its Foreign exports in a stroke, therefore forcing Economic crisis, which would immediately change your standing within the world.

You must realise how dependant America is on "Foreigners", rather less than us "Foreigners" are dependant on you.

well ill leave that question to the person who started this thread, apparently, he hasnt posted anymore tho....