You wouldn't see these scenes in even the most deprived corners of Newcastle-upon-Tyne or the Rhondda Valley. The crowds the event attracts! This is what a developing country looks like.
Yes, there's a pressing need for better access to medical care, but I wouldn't mistake that for being "like a developing country". That area has a culture that's entirely different than most anywhere else, and the people are... well, "prideful" fits better than any other descriptor that comes to mind.
Stats are from statista and US Census. This 'third world' area in middle America is richer than the average household in the UK.
But they're wrong, at least by the American definition of a "right". We understand a "right" to be synonymous with a "liberty" or a "freedom"--things you're allowed to do, not things others must do for you. Unfortunately healthcare is something that someone else must do for you. Saying you have a right to it is saying you have a right to someone else's labor, or someone else's money to pay for it.
Of couse, even though healthcare isn't a right, maybe universal healthcare is worth implementing as a public service, like roads or a military. But maybe not--that debate is still unsettled in the United States. I suspect this is because we have at least one political party that actively resists framing it as "free healthcare". It is of course not free--it is taxpayer funded, and there are costs and tradeoffs associated with that that we have to honestly consider. If other Western countries have decided that universal healthcare is worthwhile for them, then so be it, but it does not follow that it is necessarily the correct course of action for the United States.
The debate is unsettled in the United States, correct. We have one party that actively believes that letting people who would otherwise not die is okay. In fact, some people in this party believe that letting people die who would otherwise not die is a moral good.
There are other unsettled debates in the United States. Climate change is an example. So is the evolution. A debate being "unsettled" doesn't tell you much about the debate, but in the context of every other country having settled on the issue, it may tell us that whoever professes to believe the opposite isn't acting in good faith.
You can consider it whatever you like. You can consider the moon to be made of cheese. You're wrong, unless you have some basis for this statement. If so, let's hear it.
> The "Bill of Rights" is "the Bill of things the government owes you".
That is absolutely incorrect. It's the "Bill of things the government can't do" or the "Bill of things the government cannot stop you from doing". Name one thing that the Bill of Rights says the government has to provide you, other than a fair trial with representation, which is an implementation detail of the idea that they can't unilaterally decide to incarcerate or otherwise punish you. Go ahead, I'll wait.
> We have one party that actively believes that letting people who would otherwise not die is okay. In fact, some people in this party believe that letting people die who would otherwise not die is a moral good.
> whoever professes to believe the opposite isn't acting in good faith.
And now I realize we can't actually have a productive conversation about this, because you presume that the only reason anyone could possibly disagree with you is because they're morally deficient. You're not interested in the other side of the debate.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use this site as intended in the future, we'd appreciate it. That means steering away from ideological battle, not directly into it. It also means being civil in your comments.
> You wouldn't see these scenes in even the most deprived corners of Newcastle-upon-Tyne or the Rhondda Valley. The crowds the event attracts! This is what a developing country looks like.
...not "steering into ideological battle", but objecting to it is?
Your comments went straight into generic ideology. That's the worst, most tedious stuff. Also, yours were snarky, and that toxin makes flamewars much worse. Also, you eventually got personal. All of these are markers of much worse flamewar than what the GP did.
I'm not sure what you're calling "generic ideology"--my comments about the definition of a "right"? Most of our founding documents are based on that understanding of rights. Agree with that definition or not, that's how the founders defined it and that definition still frames much our national debates. I don't see how that's an ideological statement.
Yeah, I admit I got snarky. That was because I tried to calmy explain my position, and the response I got for my troubles was that I must be acting in bad faith and/or be morally lacking simply for holding the views that I hold, regardless of my rational arguments for them. Frankly I don't understand HN's fixation with "snark" as if it's the only kind of rudeness that's capable of derailing a conversation.
I get tired of seeing so many threads turned into opportunities to demonstrate how backwards the United States supposedly is. Every forum has a political leaning, and HN's is fairly strongly left. That's fine, but it's irritating to see you mods claim to be objective but then suppress things like "snark" and "ideology" on only, or at least mostly, one side of the debate.
People with the opposite ideology to yours perceive HN as having the opposite bias. I was keeping a list of these for a while. Here's a sample:
This phenomenon has been studied. It's called the Hostile Media Effect:
Who's being snarky now?
> I was keeping a list of these for a while.
Those are people complaining about other HN commenters. I'm talking about you specifically unevenly suppressing conservative posts. Just look at your comment history to see how many people complain about that, and how few complain in the other direction.
> We don't claim to be objective.
And yet you post that tiresome Hostile Media Effect link every time someone calls you out for it. Yes, we know it's a thing. No, that doesn't automatically mean that's what's going on here. No, it is not reasonable to think that everyone is wearing ideological blinders except you.
Ban me if you want. You're not moderating, you're taking sides.
You didn't seem to notice that I posted moderation replies to two accounts in this thread: yours and one with the opposing view. Those were the two that obviously broke the guidelines. That's all we're really looking for when we do this; we're not much interested in the opinions.
GDP is not wages. You can make tonnes of money in a company and none of it ends up as wages (just goes in the bank) so GDP is high but standards based on wages are no different.
As an example (I could be wrong - not an economist) but a single company making $1B more in one year would equate to a GDP/per capita increase of $10K in a town of 100K.
There are loads of places in the USA that looks desperately poor compared to everywhere I have seen in the UK so I can live with the headline as an economists click-bait.
This post from reddit on /r/funny isn’t funny - it is the truth 
Here is a bit of a take down on the UN report:
Who is the country in this context though, does GDP mean the people are wealthier?
I can stop at the byline to avoid his unusual approach to economic fact.
Comparing what? Wealth? Efficiency? Happiness? Athleticism?
If you are comparing economic well-being, use GDP per capita. If you worked one hour today and $100 or eight hours and got $100, either way your richness/poorness is $100.
If you are comparing efficiency or something, do the per hour thing.
Ie, in your one hour vs eight hour example; CountryA on average works much much less, but has the same GDP as CountryB. This would seem like a very meaningful metric for the success of the country, one that GDP would obscure entirely.
Though perhaps hours work plays into one of the other quality of life style metrics, in which case perhaps it's already covered.
I don't know any of this stuff, just commenting as a spectator :)
If you want a simple unidimensional measure, either median personal income or median household income (each has pros and cons) per capita is a much better GDP per capita; GDP per capita tells you the ratio of aggregate output to population, but nothing about economic well-being of the people in the economy.
It wouldn't hurt to look at more than one number and consider, say, the 20th and 80th percentile as well as the median.
Few people disagree that the median purchasing power in the US is greater than in Europe; the real question is "so what?"
That said, it's still better than Heritage.
I look forward to hearing what’s missing from this extremely detailed, 98 citation article.
It's interesting that citations for their actual claims/arguments are completely missing like this:
>Although California is viewed as having perhaps the nicest weather in the nation, it has suffered from domestic out-migration for many years.
>A tax increase in one jurisdiction may cause an initial out-migration to other jurisdictions.
>An income tax increase in a state may cause individuals to out-migrate over time.
>High earners are often entrepreneurs, and they may move their businesses and related jobs with them when they migrate.
>The capping of federal deductibility has increased the state and local tax bite on millions of households in high-tax states. At the same time, today people can easily find information to compare state tax burdens.
CATO is a think tank in the most oxymoronic sense. Fuck off with that "omg big number citation" non-sense.
I'll take issue with this - the poor in Nordic countries and Britain have a much stronger social safety net. So maybe a better conclusion is that in Britain they are still as poor as before, but with access to similar health care as the rich (who are slightly less rich to allow for this).
Median income measures are better for standard of living comparisons.
Specifically this jab:
> showing that the bottom 10% in the US have the same incomes (yes, PPP adjusted) as the bottom 10% in either Sweden or Finland.
> While the top 10% have very much larger incomes than the top 10% in either country.
> All that redistribution hasn't made the Nordic poor richer than the American poor but it has made the rich poorer.
If PPP is a good metric, that would mean there are about the same percentage of people starving and lacking medical care in the US as in Nordic countries. That is incorrect if general media portrayal is correct.
I was getting paid basically the same numerical value as I had been in the US, but all the prices were in pounds.
And the cars were so old, like twice as old as typical cars in the US.
I wondered where all their tax money was going -- and I figured to the poor north of the country.
Yet people in the UK generally behave so well, and are polite, and are educated and proud. This is really impressive -- the power of social psychology in the face of measureable economic deprivation.
Also, the cost of goods and services being cheaper in the US might not be a strictly good thing. If food, clothing and haircuts are only cheaper because businesses are employing people on well below a living wage, or exploiting cheap labour from undocumented immigrants, then it's hardly something to celebrate.
On that last point: "the bottom 10% in the US have the same incomes (yes, PPP adjusted) as the bottom 10% in either Sweden or Finland. While the top 10% have very much larger incomes than the top 10% in either country. All that redistribution hasn't made the Nordic poor richer than the American poor but it has made the rich poorer". I'm not sure of the details, but it's easy to see how that would be misleading if those income figures don't account for government transfers from rich to poor, or nationalised/socialised state services in health, transport or education.
The whole place is basically a big rust belt. Industry is dead, martitime doesn’t generate a lot of jobs, the US captured tech, and banking produces money but not employment.
Unless you live in a perfectly communist society, mean GDP is a poor proxy for how wealthy the people in it are.
Additionally, if the author wants to adjust for PPP, they should also adjust for cost of healthcare, education, median transportation expenses - all of which are much higher in the US. (All right, median transportation expenses may be higher in the UK. I honestly have no idea.)
Also, it's worth considering how much GDP in each country is spent on projects that don't improve anyone's life. If half your GDP is spent on building tanks and submarines and nuclear weapons, while your people want color TVs and washing machines, or a health system that won't bankrupt them, it's often not the best use of your economic output.
Transportation by car costs dirt in the US. Transportation by rail isn't so much higher to make up for how dirt cheap it is to go places in the US by car when compared to Europe.
Switzerland poverty rate - 6.6%
Germany poverty rate - 16.7%
That's a bit like saying getting divorced is easy because other people enjoy single life.
Switzerland, having never been in the EU, has long-standing trade/customs/etc. deals in place.
The UK, having been in the EU, now exits without extant trade/etc. deals with anyone, as setting them up on an individual basis while part of the EU wasn't permitted - the EU negotiates them as a single entity.
Source: I'm British.
The demographic fact is not politically incorrect. What's immoral and unethical is acting like that fact is a priori a bad thing.
Take this simple example:
> No Air conditioning in many hotels/airbnb and they had to switch places last minute.
Why do you absolutely need air conditioning in Europe? I have been multiple times in Southern France, Spain, and Italy, where the temperatures are comparable or even higher than many US regions (say, Aix-en-Provence vs San Jose, which share the same climate with temperatures even a tad higher in the former). Nonetheless, air conditioning is seldom used in residential areas. Commercial areas are using it, but still to a much lesser extent than in USA.
Yet, everything works out quite fine... True, people work later and take a break in the middle of the day, achieving nonetheless a better productivity...
Thus, I ask the question : are you sure the air conditioning presence (or absence) is a good metric of "greatness" -- or general well-being of people living there?
In general you probably don't, but to be fair this summer has been a bit special.
no need to be that emotional, just a fact this summer, no more than that.
Yes, because of course our goal is to have a white majority all over the world, right? Right? (Just casually being a little bit white supremacist has never hurt anyone, ever, right?)
> it takes guts to just state that fact these days.
It also takes something else, and I'll let you figure out what that is.
How do i downvote this nonsense. Well done on your bravery by the way.
I'm not sure when medical care is cheaper in the US. Within the VA system, maybe?
Also, the ranking does not stack up against wikipedia figures:
(Where PPP is already accounted for, so this guy is doing it twice).
UK would come in ~35th. Similar to Nevada or Michigan.
You literally just quoted the article saying it's more expensive in the US.
> In the US ... medical care generally more expensive