[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Okay?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...PP)_per_capita

The US places 11th, behind
1 Qatar 132,870
2 Luxembourg 99,506
3 Singapore 85,382
4 Brunei 79,508
5 Kuwait 70,542
6 Norway 68,591
7 United Arab Emirates 67,217
8 Ireland 65,806
9 San Marino 62,938
10 Switzerland 58,647
11 Hong Kong 56,878
12 United States 56,084

I'm not trying to cherry-pick results that back my agenda, that's literally the first Google result for "countries gdp per capita" and Wikipedia is pretty neutral AFAIK.

Which of those countries above us are comparable to us?

Qatar, who still uses slave labor?
or the UAE, who's civil rights line up squarely with Europe from the 7th century.

It sounds like my use of "developed" threw you off. Apparently it's now offensive to use the terms "first world" and "third world," so I'm trying to use "developed" and "developing." I think you interpreted my use of "developed" as meaning "as good as the US" or "as big as the US" or "as populous as the US" and you don't believe there's any country as good, big, or populous as the US.

You lost me at "comparable". Not developed.

I'm talking about other first world countries, of which there are plenty.

Ok, which of those on the list of GDP per capita's ahead of us qualifies as first world to you?

So I guess I still don't see why the US is the "best" country in the world. You've yet to produce a metric that will back that up, especially with all of the huge areas I mentioned earlier where the US falls short.

Unfortunately there's no metric you can point to and say "see! there i told you so". First we need to find comparable countries, figure out how theyre comparable, how theyre not, and use that as a basis to measure. Which of the countries on our per capita list are comparable in your estimation?

[Laminar]

For real?

"America is the greatest country on earth, and you can't prove otherwise because there's not another country on earth great enough to compare to the US."

Come on, dude, I gave you several metrics to measure a great country, the US falls short in all of them. You provided your own metric and it turns out the US isn't great there, either. Now you're backpedaling and it's not working.

[besson3c]

At the very least would you concede that your statement was overstated, Snow-i, and that (circling back to my point), the successes and failures of other countries are valid references, and perhaps things we should pay greater attention to?

[subego]

There's always stuff we can learn from other countries.

I will note however, when it comes to the common list of things we're supposed to have learned from other countries, they tend not to account for one or more of the following...

1) America is practically uninhabited wilderness compared to many countries. Certainly the majority of the first world ones.

2) America is very racially diverse. Most countries are homogeneous.

3) America doesn't have some other superpower providing for our defense.

[Waragainstsleep]

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

There's always stuff we can learn from other countries.

I will note however, when it comes to the common list of things we're supposed to have learned from other countries, they tend not to account for one or more of the following...

1) America is practically uninhabited wilderness compared to many countries. Certainly the majority of the first world ones.

2) America is very racially diverse. Most countries are homogeneous.

These are just talking points: China and India are more populous and more diverse (China has 56 officially recognized languages and many more that are unrecognized; India has 22 officially recognized languages). If you take the EU as an economic block, that'd rival the US in many respects such as diversity, size and economic power, too. Canada also is very diverse and sparsely populated.

Originally Posted by subego 

3) America doesn't have some other superpower providing for our defense.

You're right that the US outspends the next 7 countries combined, so it is actually more important to have a cheaper and better health care system. The US spends significantly more per capita as well as measured as part of GDP than other countries on health care. Therefore having universal health care, investing in prevention and such is more important if the US wants to keep its military.

[subego]

I think we're talking about different things.

I'll restate my observations without the comparisons

1) America is sparsely populated
2) America is racially diverse
3) America must provide for its own defense

America gets criticized for not enacting certain policies. I argue these criticisms don't take into account the conditions listed above.

As justification for the criticism, the evidence offered are examples of countries who have enacted the policies, and successfully to boot.

These countries rarely operate under any of the conditions I list. Western European countries are oft-given examples of countries who have enacted the policies in question, and none of the conditions on the list apply to them.

China and India are racially diverse, but for that to apply my point, it needs to be in the context of some policy they've enacted. While it may not seem the case, I am in fact not so arrogant to think America can learn nothing useful from brutal, authoritarian Maoists, but I don't often see China high-up on the list of "Enlightened Policies America Has Curiously Failed to Adopt".

Canada's a much better example. In being diverse, yet successfully enacting many of the policies in question, it's an outlier. Though I'd argue how sparse the population is from a practical standpoint. The vast majority is within stone's throw of the States, and the majority of that is clustered right up on more densely populated parts of the U.S.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think we're talking about different things.

I'll restate my observations without the comparisons

1) America is sparsely populated
2) America is racially diverse
3) America must provide for its own defense

I don't think we are talking about different things. America is an outlier in certain respects just like pretty much any country has very unique features that you cannot find in others. You, for instance, seem to exclude the EU even though for many issues the EU is the relevant political body. Immigration (both from outside the EU and the fact that there is free movement inside the EU) and trade policies are handled on the European level for EU member states, and the EU has much, much more cultural and regional diversity than the US. Especially if you think of the EU member states as the analog of US states, this serves as a perfectly valid basis for comparison.

Originally Posted by subego 

As justification for the criticism, the evidence offered are examples of countries who have enacted the policies, and successfully to boot.

These countries rarely operate under any of the conditions I list. Western European countries are oft-given examples of countries who have enacted the policies in question, and none of the conditions on the list apply to them.

None of the supposedly unique properties you list has any relevance to health care. Is larger cultural diversity than, say, Japan really a counter argument? Moreover, as you admitted yourself, Canada is very similar, as is I would argue the EU.

Originally Posted by subego 

Canada's a much better example. In being diverse, yet successfully enacting many of the policies in question, it's an outlier. Though I'd argue how sparse the population is from a practical standpoint. The vast majority is within stone's throw of the States, and the majority of that is clustered right up on more densely populated parts of the U.S.

… which leaves the interior of Canada quite empty. Isn't that the point you make about the US as well?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

There's always stuff we can learn from other countries.

I will note however, when it comes to the common list of things we're supposed to have learned from other countries, they tend not to account for one or more of the following...

1) America is practically uninhabited wilderness compared to many countries. Certainly the majority of the first world ones.

2) America is very racially diverse. Most countries are homogeneous.

3) America doesn't have some other superpower providing for our defense.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

For real?

"America is the greatest country on earth, and you can't prove otherwise because there's not another country on earth great enough to compare to the US."


Come on, dude, I gave you several metrics to measure a great country, the US falls short in all of them. You provided your own metric and it turns out the US isn't great there, either. Now you're backpedaling and it's not working.

No, I'm saying if you want to make the comparison you need to actually make the comparison, and consider things outside of the metrics you provided. If you want to cherry pick this metric or that to make your case, you can, but you can't claim to have made a comparison. In order to do that we need to delve deeper into the similarities and differences between those countries and the US as it pertains to not only their health care systems but the economics of that system as a whole.

You can easily prove otherwise, which is what I'm asking you to do. Which country, above us on any of the metrics you or I provided is comparable to the US to the point that adopting their healthcare systems would net similar gains to the metrics which we're basing the comparison on?

Don't accuse me of backpedaling when it's clear you're struggling to understand what I am saying. I am happy to elaborate to help you catch up, but lets leave the accusations at the door eh?

[besson3c]

It seems like some people need to think of the US as the best, generally. I say this based on the vehemence of their disagreement and how emotional these kinds of conversations can be.

Why does there have to be a best country? I get it that human beings can be competitive, but do you think this need to compete gets in the way of being open minded and learning?

[Waragainstsleep]

Its motivational to keep people subscribed to the American dream. They get brainwashed for 18 years reciting a pledge daily, then told what they need to do to keep America at the top of the tree. Its why Trump's simple slogan worked so well. Give them a vague goal then people will try whatever you say to achieve it. Like snake oil curing cancer.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

which leaves the interior of Canada quite empty. Isn't that the point you make about the US as well?

Sparsely inhabited ≠ uninhabited.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

No, I'm saying if you want to make the comparison you need to actually make the comparison, and consider things outside of the metrics you provided.

Sorry, it seems like you got lost. Our particular conversation was not about health care.

Originally Posted by You

Our poverty stricken have a better standard of living then most of the people on the planet. We paved the way for democracy across the globe (it didn't really exist before we came along and demonstrated it as an extremely successful model). We kept communist aggression in check. There are countless other contributions the US has made to humanity as a whole. Does that mean we shouldn't keep going? Absolutely not, but to discount our "uniqueness" is to discount the reality of what made us so successful in the first place.

It was about if the US is the best country on earth.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Sorry, it seems like you got lost. Our particular conversation was not about health care.

Whoops, long week - got my threads crossed.

....

My point remains.

It was about if the US is the best country on earth.

You never provided me an example of a country that was "better" than the US that we aren't propping up with bundles of cold hard cash or that doesn't fall under the security umbrella the US provides.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You, for instance, seem to exclude the EU

I exclude the EU as racially diverse because EU model of diversity is each slightly different flavor of white people ethnic group gets its own federal government, which is then stripped of offensive military capability.

Calling this diverse is stretching the word beyond recognition.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

I exclude the EU as racially diverse because EU model of diversity is each slightly different flavor of white people ethnic group gets its own federal government, which is then stripped of offensive military capability.

Calling this diverse is stretching the word beyond recognition.

How many of your ethnic groups have their own military capability?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I exclude the EU as racially diverse because EU model of diversity is each slightly different flavor of white people ethnic group gets its own federal government, which is then stripped of offensive military capability.

Calling this diverse is stretching the word beyond recognition.

That's not correct:
(1) Most European countries have significant shares of non-white population. About 20 % of Germany's or France's population are not natives, and in case of France ~54 % of that is non-white; what is more 29 % of the births have at least one non-French parent. The numbers for Germany are quite similar. That is quite to the US where 72.4 % are white and the largest non-white group, African Americans, make up 12.6 % of the population.

(2) You continue to underestimate the cultural differences between the various EU countries, those are much, much larger than those within the US. Imagine a US with 24 official languages and >10 other, non-official languages, each with a different history reaching back millennia. Imagine if you went from Kentucky to Ohio to Illinois, and people each had their own language. In fact, it's unlikely you will be able to converse in your native tongue at all. Even within European countries, certain fissures between different groups flare up, e. g. protestants vs. Catholics in Northern Ireland or Catalonia demanding its independence from Spain).

(3) Not all ethnic groups don't get their own federal government, there are plenty of countries that have several large ethnic groups such as Belgium (French-speaking Wallonia, Dutch-speaking Flanders and a German-speaking minority), Switzerland (which is technically not a EU country, but certainly in the heart of Europe) and Spain (with its Catalonian and Basque minorities).

(4) The security umbrella that you seem to focus on is a different issue, but very recent on a historical scale. Germany has introduced health insurance (and other social fundamental social programs) in 1883 by the “great Socialist” Otto von Bismarck (who was anything but). This was way before US military hegemony spread to Europe and other parts of the world. Health insurance doesn't have anything to do with military might. But even if you think this to be a factor, then wouldn't it be better for the US to adopt a cheaper health care system? (And the current system is way more expensive and less effective than health care systems of other countries.)

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You never provided me an example of a country that was "better" than the US that we aren't propping up with bundles of cold hard cash or that doesn't fall under the security umbrella the US provides.

As long as you don't say what “better” means, it's just an empty, make-you-feel-good phrase. At the end every country is special just like every snowflake is special, there are particularities that are not present in other countries.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

How many of your ethnic groups have their own military capability?

The same number that have their own country.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

The same number that have their own country.

and we can't forget who's been the most powerful person in the entire world for the last 8 years. How many black PMs have there been in EU member states?

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That's not correct:
(1) Most European countries have significant shares of non-white population. About 20 % of Germany's or France's population are not natives, and in case of France ~54 % of that is non-white; what is more 29 % of the births have at least one non-French parent. The numbers for Germany are quite similar. That is quite to the US where 72.4 % are white and the largest non-white group, African Americans, make up 12.6 % of the population.

(2) You continue to underestimate the cultural differences between the various EU countries, those are much, much larger than those within the US. Imagine a US with 24 official languages and >10 other, non-official languages, each with a different history reaching back millennia. Imagine if you went from Kentucky to Ohio to Illinois, and people each had their own language. In fact, it's unlikely you will be able to converse in your native tongue at all. Even within European countries, certain fissures between different groups flare up, e. g. protestants vs. Catholics in Northern Ireland or Catalonia demanding its independence from Spain).

(3) Not all ethnic groups don't get their own federal government, there are plenty of countries that have several large ethnic groups such as Belgium (French-speaking Wallonia, Dutch-speaking Flanders and a German-speaking minority), Switzerland (which is technically not a EU country, but certainly in the heart of Europe) and Spain (with its Catalonian and Basque minorities).

(4) The security umbrella that you seem to focus on is a different issue, but very recent on a historical scale. Germany has introduced health insurance (and other social fundamental social programs) in 1883 by the “great Socialist” Otto von Bismarck (who was anything but). This was way before US military hegemony spread to Europe and other parts of the world. Health insurance doesn't have anything to do with military might. But even if you think this to be a factor, then wouldn't it be better for the US to adopt a cheaper health care system? (And the current system is way more expensive and less effective than health care systems of other countries.)

4) I focus on offensive military capability because of the significant expenditure it entails.

Many of the countries who wag their finger at America while touting the superiority of their own health care system don't have this expense. An expense they don't have because America is paying it. I'll note this makes the finger wagging quite insulting.


3) That one has to drill all the way down to the Walloons before Europe decided the countries were getting too granular just helps prove my point.


2) I don't minimize the ethnic differences. They're so massive the only thing keeping Europe from waging genocide on itself is America forcing it to stop by means of continuous, significant expense higher than the GDP of most European countries. This is another instance where it's rather insulting to have what can be achieved without this expense disapprovingly waved in our faces.


1) I looked at the demographic breakdown of Germany's mmigrant population. Over half of it is other Europeans. This isn't the kind of racial diversity I'm talking about. I'm talking about the kind which causes problems, and hence acts as a drag on progress.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

4) I focus on offensive military capability because of the significant expenditure it entails.

Many of the countries who wag their finger at America while touting the superiority of their own health care system don't have this expense. An expense they don't have because America is paying it. I'll note this makes the finger wagging quite insulting.


3) That one has to drill all the way down to the Walloons before Europe decided the countries were getting too granular just helps prove my point.


2) I don't minimize the ethnic differences. They're so massive the only thing keeping Europe from waging genocide on itself is America forcing it to stop by means of continuous, significant expense higher than the GDP of most European countries. This is another instance where it's rather insulting to have what can be achieved without this expense disapprovingly waved in our faces.


1) I looked at the demographic breakdown of Germany's mmigrant population. Over half of it is other Europeans. This isn't the kind of racial diversity I'm talking about. I'm talking about the kind which causes problems, and hence acts as a drag on progress.

Not everyone agrees that your defence expenditure is as necessary as you seem to be implying here. Lets not forget how wasteful the US military can be, nor the fact that many of the reasons used to justify it are potentially self-fulfilling prophecies.

I think many of your racial diversity problems are caused by lack of diversity in certain areas. Not mention other problems like the massive pervy orange one you're about to have to salute at.
It probably helps that there aren't many minority citizens left alive in Europe who remember segregation, and we don't have a widespread murderous racist cop problem either.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

4) I focus on offensive military capability because of the significant expenditure it entails.

Many of the countries who wag their finger at America while touting the superiority of their own health care system don't have this expense. An expense they don't have because America is paying it. I'll note this makes the finger wagging quite insulting.

You're still conveniently skipping the fact that countries with universal health care spend less, not more on health care — both, in terms of GDP and per person. The fact that you are insulted is frequently being perceived as being rooted in arrogance and ignorance.

Originally Posted by subego 

2) I don't minimize the ethnic differences. They're so massive the only thing keeping Europe from waging genocide on itself is America forcing it to stop by means of continuous, significant expense higher than the GDP of most European countries. This is another instance where it's rather insulting to have what can be achieved without this expense disapprovingly waved in our faces.

It's not the US military that is stopping England and France or France and Germany from going to war with one another, it's the European Union. What keeps US military bases inside Europe is not due to the wishes of the respective countries, but simply the US' desire to have bases all over the world (German bases are crucial for the US' operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, for instance). America outspending the next 7 nations combined on military expenses is its own choice.

Originally Posted by subego 

1) I looked at the demographic breakdown of Germany's mmigrant population. Over half of it is other Europeans.

That's exactly what I wrote: ~20 % non-natives, roughly half of them from outside the EU.

Originally Posted by subego 

This isn't the kind of racial diversity I'm talking about. I'm talking about the kind which causes problems, and hence acts as a drag on progress.

I think you get too hung up on the difference between race, culture and nationality. The struggles Eastern European immigrants face usually mimic the situation latinos are in when they work in the US: they frequently take jobs that the local population no longer wants to take (e. g. health care in the UK and Germany), but are seen by some to “take jobs away from locals”. (Of course, the data shows that immigrants are a net gain to the economy.) The fact that you define them to be of the same race doesn't make a difference in how they are treated. In Germany there is an epidemic of organized professional burglaries that are linked to organized crime from Eastern Europe. Just look at the map of people who voted for Brexit in the UK and compare that to the regions in the US where Trump support was strongest: they share the same features, namely they are areas of declining or dead industries, they haven't shared in the benefits of globalization and they feel strongly about immigration (mostly from Eastern Europe). Unlike the US where Muslims make up ~1 % of the population, most European countries have much larger Muslim minorities (e. g. 8-10 % in France, 2 % in Germany and 5 % in the UK). I don't think I need to explain to you the kind of problems European countries have, trying to begin to assimilate muslim citizens.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Not everyone agrees

Low energy.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You're still conveniently skipping the fact that countries with universal health care spend less, not more on health care — both, in terms of GDP and per person. The fact that you are insulted is frequently being perceived as being rooted in arrogance and ignorance.

It's not the US military that is stopping England and France or France and Germany from going to war with one another, it's the European Union. What keeps US military bases inside Europe is not due to the wishes of the respective countries, but simply the US' desire to have bases all over the world (German bases are crucial for the US' operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, for instance). America outspending the next 7 nations combined on military expenses is its own choice.

That's exactly what I wrote: ~20 % non-natives, roughly half of them from outside the EU.

I think you get too hung up on the difference between race, culture and nationality. The struggles Eastern European immigrants face usually mimic the situation latinos are in when they work in the US: they frequently take jobs that the local population no longer wants to take (e. g. health care in the UK and Germany), but are seen by some to “take jobs away from locals”. (Of course, the data shows that immigrants are a net gain to the economy.) The fact that you define them to be of the same race doesn't make a difference in how they are treated. In Germany there is an epidemic of organized professional burglaries that are linked to organized crime from Eastern Europe. Just look at the map of people who voted for Brexit in the UK and compare that to the regions in the US where Trump support was strongest: they share the same features, namely they are areas of declining or dead industries, they haven't shared in the benefits of globalization and they feel strongly about immigration (mostly from Eastern Europe). Unlike the US where Muslims make up ~1 % of the population, most European countries have much larger Muslim minorities (e. g. 8-10 % in France, 2 % in Germany and 5 % in the UK). I don't think I need to explain to you the kind of problems European countries have, trying to begin to assimilate muslim citizens.

My claim isn't the factors I've listed are reasons America shouldn't have government subsidized healthcare, it's those factors make it more difficult.

What is insulting is the assertion America should have it by now because country X has it, when country X doesn't have to deal with those difficulties.

Germany has one-quarter the population of America occupying one-twentieth the land area. The logistical considerations for America providing healthcare to all its citizens are on an entirely different plane.

Germany does not have widespread poverty due to centuries of race-based discrimination.

Germany does not have said discrimination acting as a wedge issue.

Germany does not put a half-trillion dollar tax burden on its citizens to cover defense spending. Even if government subsidized healthcare is far cheaper than the system America has in place, it's still a tax burden. The political will for that burden is much easier to generate if other tax burdens, such as superpower grade defense spending, don't exist for that country.

Which adds a second layer of insult considering how much of that tax burden is shouldered with the intent of maintaining Europe's integrity.

Perhaps because I'm a little insulted, I'm guilty of making this part of the argument in an asinine way. Hopefully I'm capable of putting a lid on it.

Has it not been a great boon to Western European countries not to have needed offensive military capability? Not just in terms of monetary savings, but being so secure, the framework for solving problems by means of military aggression doesn't even need to exist.

I don't begrudge Europe the respite, you've earned it. However, it's a privileged position. No one likes getting looked down upon from a position of privilege.

[OreoCookie]

@subego
Regarding the military defense aspect, that's way too simplistic a point of view. It is important to remember that Europeans and Japan are not asking or begging the US to maintain its international bases, and spend ever more money so we don't have to — it's Americans themselves who put that burden on their own shoulders. And that's because there are plenty of economic advantages to doing so: The Marshall Plan was as much a boon to Europe as it was to the (untouched) American economy. America's military hegemony fueled its economic prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s until the oil crisis in the 1970s: Europe was given dollars to spend dollars. What the world has neglected to do was adapt its international political structure to the post-Cold War era. And I agree that this includes a complete revamp of the military structure. But the US is not willing to accept a multipolar world, and so we seem to be stuck where we are. Again, European aren't begging for the US to keep its huge military-industrial complex.

You shouldn't be insulted by a difference of opinion or by someone pointing out an area “where the US isn't No. 1”. Nor should you think that this is based on ignorance on my part: I've lived in the US on two occasions, in both, the rural PA countryside (which, I guess, is a region where Trump swung the election) and West coast Berkeley. Thanks to my host family, I have had the chance to visit also other parts (including Kansas and Oklahoma). There are special circumstances that make the US different from any other country, but just like with any comparison between different groups, the differences are often overestimated — especially when they concern international trends. in many other respects, it has to fight with the same type of problems other countries have to grapple with. Globalization has the same type of effects on some parts of the US that it has on parts of, say, England.

In one way the US does stand out: it is the only developed country without universal health care. And its system is worse (in terms of costs and outcome) than the others. You should be angry about that rather than being insulted by others pointing that out.


I'm still confused by three things:
(1) You keep on avoiding evidence that universal health care is cheaper, and that includes sparsely populated countries such as Canada. The reasons are obvious: better prevention means lower costs and longer life spans, economies of scale and more competition if insurance companies can offer their products in all 50 states. So it's cheaper for society, not an extra burden. Are you disagreeing it's is advantageous and cheaper?

(2) You seem to be focused very much on Germany in isolation: For things such as social services, any European country can no longer be seen in isolation, because of the free movement of people within the EU. If you move from Spain to Germany, you have immediate access to a lot of the social systems within the German system (and of course, vice versa). Even from outside of the EU we have lots of immigration (e. g. in times of crisis). So a better comparison would be EU vs. US where each US State has its own universal health care system.

(3) You seem to insist on ancillary issues: Yes, in the grand scheme of things Germany had had only a negligible number of colonies and no slavery. But I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion. Plus, a number of other European countries such as the UK and France do have to grapple with these issues. And yes, Germany is a very, very rich country, and that puts Germany in a better position than, say, Algeria to tackle its problems. But poorer countries such as Greece, Spain and Cuba have universal health care as well. It's not a matter of whether you can afford to, it's that poor states can't afford not to. And not least, we have had literally millions of people move to Europe from abject poverty and war. Germany alone took on 1–2 million refugees. Europe is much more exposed to poverty than the US is. What do you think happens to these refugees when they are sick? They get treated.

[subego]

I directly addressed universal healthcare being cheaper... it follows the sentence "even if government subsidized health care is far cheaper".

I picked Germany because it was offered as an example early in the discussion. I'll discuss any developed country, as evinced by me directly addressing the Canada question. With a map even.

I directly addressed how the "ancillary" issues relate. A citation of widespread poverty followed the assertion for a reason.

I explicitly stated why I feel insulted. It has nothing to do with being called something other than "number one"

I make no assumptions over why our opinions differ. I go so far as to avoid second person pronouns lest they be interpreted as preceding a personal assumption I did not make.

I am open to discussion of American military importance in the European sphere. What has been provided as an argument is it is not needed, yet no member country has taken the (quite easy, just ask) route of leaving NATO. At the same time, the EU, the supposed foundation of Europe's unified future, is in turmoil because one of its key member countries is ejecting. Forgive me if I am yet to be convinced by the arguments presented thus far.

I am patient, but I do not have infinite time. Why should I continue with this if the answers I provide are treated as if empty space?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I directly addressed universal healthcare being cheaper... it follows the sentence "even if government subsidized health care is far cheaper".

You were using the fact that the US spends way more on its military as an example why the US can't afford it. The sentence you quote isn't an argument either way, you just (correctly) write that in the current political climate it would be hard to implement universal health care — even if it were cheaper for society. But that doesn't make it correct or a good counter argument.

This is definitely an issue if you want to implement universal health care coverage, a very important one. You don't want to crash your existing system by making too radical a change all at once. But it's not a valid argument for what is ultimately the better solution.

Originally Posted by subego 

I picked Germany because it was offered as an example early in the discussion. I'll discuss any developed country, as evinced by me directly addressing the Canada question. With a map even.

I directly addressed how the "ancillary" issues relate. A citation of widespread poverty followed the assertion for a reason.

I explicitly stated why I feel insulted. It has nothing to do with being called something other than "number one"

You merely insisted that the circumstances were different (e. g. that parts of Canada are unpopulated vs. sparsely populated). I still don't understand why you think this is relevant for the current discussion.

Originally Posted by subego 

I am open to discussion of American military importance in the European sphere. What has been provided as an argument is it is not needed, yet no member country has taken the (quite easy, just ask) route of leaving NATO.

The question of NATO is independent of US military bases and other US expenditures. The US could slash its military budget without having to give up any obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty, e. g. France doesn't have any military bases in Lithuania either.

Originally Posted by subego 

At the same time, the EU, the supposed foundation of Europe's unified future, is in turmoil because one of its key member countries is ejecting.

What became the EU is the reason we haven't had a war in Europe since WW2. We still have freedom of movement in Europe and a much larger cultural diversity. The fact that the political order on the European level now is strained doesn't mean that this assessment is false.

Originally Posted by subego 

I am patient, but I do not have infinite time. Why should I continue with this if the answers I provide are treated as if empty space?

Perhaps we are writing past one another. I'm trying to be very precise with my criticisms and comments, and I don't see that you address these points. If I insist that certain things must be seen from the European perspective, you return to Germany. If you claim larger diversity in the US and I give you counterarguments, you don't seem to address them directly. Regarding Canada, for instance, you only wrote that sparsely populated is not the same as uninhabited, but you don't further explain as to why you think that means you can't compare Canada and its health care system to the US.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

But it's not a valid argument for what is ultimately the better solution.

This is where the wires are crossed.

It's not a valid argument for what is ultimately the better solution because that's not what I'm trying to debate.

For purposes of this discussion, universal healthcare should be considered the "best practice". Full stop. Nothing I have said should be interpreted as a challenge to this proposition.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Whoops, long week - got my threads crossed.

....

My point remains.



You never provided me an example of a country that was "better" than the US that we aren't propping up with bundles of cold hard cash or that doesn't fall under the security umbrella the US provides.

Ah, so we've finally reached the real root of why you believe the US is the best country in the world - military power.

Would you agree with this statement: "The US is the greatest country in the world because they are able to provide military security to so much of the rest of the world, and in doing so free up other countries to improve the lives of their citizens to a better quality of life than what Americans experience."

[subego]

@Oreo

My post may have come off as a little abrupt. I'm definitely interested in responding to questions, such as my point on Canada, but I didn't want to launch into it without untangling these wires.

To put it another way, move the conversation in any direction and I shall follow the lead.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Ah, so we've finally reached the real root of why you believe the US is the best country in the world - military power.

Would you agree with this statement: "The US is the greatest country in the world because they are able to provide military security to so much of the rest of the world, and in doing so free up other countries to improve the lives of their citizens to a better quality of life than what Americans experience."

Military power through economic might. Military power is pretty much a function of total economy. I would tweak your statement as follows:

""The US has been for the last 70 years the world's only true superpower because they are able to provide economic and military security to so much of the rest of the developed and developing world, and in doing so relieve other countries from cost burdens and opportunity costs associated with developing stable global currencies and robust defense infrastructures that would otherwise threaten their development and therefore contribution to humanity's advancement as a whole."

[Laminar]

And where does that statement fit in something about the US being the best? After all, that's what we've been trying to get at all along right? Like when I asked you for a measurable metric showing that the US is the best and you gave me one and it didn't show that the US is the best so you backpedaled onto this.