Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 djones520 wrote:

He doesn't want to. Wants to move back home. He moved up there for a relationship, and now the only reason he's staying is because he likes his company, and he's trying to get them to open an office in the states for him to run. Whether or not that happens, he'll be returning back to the US next year.

That does sucks, then.

 djones520 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:


That's about what my father pays, the 55% part. Except he's not a Canadian citizen, so he doesn't get to reap the benefits of what he pays, like the medical insurance. As soon as his work permit expires, he's moving back to the states.

There are ways to get it in returns if he gets a citizenship. I know a few French peeps that went from ass-broke to fething rich overnight.

He doesn't want to. Wants to move back home. He moved up there for a relationship, and now the only reason he's staying is because he likes his company, and he's trying to get them to open an office in the states for him to run. Whether or not that happens, he'll be returning back to the US next year.

Sometimes eHarmony doesn't work out as well as the commercials.

If by relationship you mean the same thing my divorced father is going through, then I'm right there with ya buddy. Double points if he's white and she's asian. Super weird in Canada, I swear :rolleyes:

BTW this has way less to do with you d and more me commenting on my father. Alcohol.

 sebster wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Lack of available capital isn't really holding back our economy. We have a lack of demand, caused by recession and government cuts, while FTSE 100 companies have plenty of cash. Wealth is being redistributed in our economy - one shop shuts and another opens (even if it's virtual). But it's not growing, and that's not because of a lack of money to invest.

Yep, there is trillions available to invest. But when the economy is poor, there is little reason to do so (better to earn 2% and cover inflation, than build a new factory and lose 10% a year).

The point being that as the economy slowly recovers then investment opportunities will open up, and that investment will further encourage the recovery. Just as long as no-one does anything to screw up the recovery.

Never mind that sitting on all those trillions is CAUSING the economy to recover slowly in the first place...

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
So if someone had a massive car accident and needed a lot of surgery in order to save his life, yet this someone worked as a janitor in a high school and therefore couldn't afford it, he shouldn't get it? With socialised medicine he could still live, without it he'd need to have health insurance and then await the insurance company's response.

Well, he'd be a government employee, so the chances he wouldn't have healthcare are pretty slim.

Also, who caused the accident? If it's not our janitor friend, the responsible party is also responsible for the medical bills. Provided they have automobile insurance and aren't, say, illegal entrants to the country driving without any sort of license or financial protection from liability.

And no, by the way, there's no "waiting for the insurance company's response" before live-saving surgery is performed.

Seaward wrote:
And no, by the way, there's no "waiting for the insurance company's response" before live-saving surgery is performed.

Except for those times when there is.

 Desubot wrote:
Its still not what im saying at all. and your not even answering the question.

I've been trying to answer your question, your question has been vague, poorly worded and I suspect drifting from post to post (perhaps without you realising it).

how much money does it take to send a child in a dire situation to go through school.

The same as any other kid. And they're already going to school, it's just that right now the school they go gets noticeably less funding per kid, because the district they're in is poorer, and therefore commands less of a tax base.

of that now many dire children are out there? because if you let one go you have to let all of them go to school.

I think you've kind of invented a debate in your head, that isn't the one we're having here. 'Dire' isn't the issue. Lower class is the issue.

if its a reasonable amount that allows them to also pay for there own children to go to school then who cares, its all good. otherwise we have a problem.

They don't 'pay for their own kids to go to school'. School is paid almost entirely by the state (there's a small materials fee, but it's immaterial to the cost of the teacher, classrom etc). Even in private schools there's government subsidies.

The point is that we as a society do this because that's the only way to produce another generation of intelligent, capable human beings who can continue and advance our society.

now suddenly some of these middle class people WILL start dropping into lower middle class and that is dropping down a totem pole.

How? I don't think you understand how socio-economic classes work.

this is not the case currently because we are just borrowing money from china to sustain these programs and thats putting us in dept.

That is not how it works at all.

People really, really don't understand how debt and government interact.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
So... a counter point about social mobility by none other than Thomas Sowell:

'none other than Thomas Sowell'?

You know he's basically the icon of dodgy pseudo-academia who slides on by because he completely endorses the beliefs of one political faction.

EDIT - I see you note Sowell is a blowhard in your next post. All is good then. Nothing to see here.

Economic Mobility
Most people are not even surprised any more when they hear about someone who came here from Korea or Vietnam with very little money, and very little knowledge of English, who nevertheless persevered and rose in American society. Nor are we surprised when their children excel in school and go on to professional careers.

Yet, in utter disregard of such plain facts, so-called "social scientists" do studies which conclude that America is no longer a land of opportunity, and that upward mobility is a "myth."

Yeah, so basically he's saying 'sure, people have studied this, but it flies in the face of the anecdotes we like to tell, so their studies are wrong.

Opportunity is just one factor in economic advancement. How well a given individual or group takes advantage of existing opportunities is another. Only by implicitly (and arbitrarily) assuming that a failure to rise must be due to society's barriers can we say that American society no longer has opportunity for upward social mobility.

The very same attitudes and behavior that landed a father in a lower income bracket can land the son in that same bracket.

This only makes sense if one doesn't understand, or pretends not to understand, that social mobility is only assessed by comparison to other countries. And so his excuse must state that the other developed countries of the world are somehow providing less opportunity, but experience less of an issue with attitudes and behaviour being passed from father to son.

Which is, of course, completely absurd.

The welfare state promoted by those who insist that it is society that is keeping some people down makes it unnecessary for many low-income people to exert themselves -- and therefore makes it unnecessary for them to develop their own potential to the fullest.

Which only makes sense if one thought that Europe has a smaller welfare state.

Which is, of course, completely absurd.

The multiculturalist dogma that says one culture is just as good as another paints people into the cultural corner where they happened to have been born, even if other cultures around them have features that offer better prospects of rising.

That doesn't even half make sense, and is about the stupidest description of multiculturalism I've ever read.

Meanwhile, Asian immigrants or refugees who arrive here are not handicapped or distracted by a counterproductive social vision full of envy, resentment and paranoia, and so can rise in the very same society where opportunity is said to be absent.

Or, to look at the issue much more sensibly, migrants tend to be exceptional people. I mean, they've picked up and moved away from their support network of family and friends just to give their children a better chance in life.

The answer to social mobility then, in Sowell's mind, is just to expect the poor to be exceptional people, while to be happy that the wealthy and middle class can continue to be average and just slide on by, generation to generation.

But the very opposite conclusion arises in studies that follow actual flesh-and-blood individuals over time, most of whom move up across the various income brackets with the passing years. Most working Americans who were initially in the bottom 20 percent of income-earners, rise out of that bottom 20 percent. More of them end up in the top 20 percent than remain in the bottom 20 percent.

Sure, and in other countries with a more even standard of education regardless of the socio-economic region, and with a much higher minimum wage, the numbers are much better. That's the point. Social mobility isn't bad, but it could be much better if you'd just help people get the education and the income to start to climb.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
EDIT: Just to be clear, I've advocated the US to move towards the Canadian Healthcare model (essentially expand Medicare to everyone). But it'll cost us.

Actually, Canada pays way less for their healthcare system than you guys pay for yours. Like a third less. And while their costs are growing greater than GDP like every healthcare system, they aren't growing at anything like the scary rate yours have grown in the last decade. Like, magically swap to Canadian healthcare today and most of your long term budget concerns would just disappear.

As to a traditional "socialistic" programs, what I find funny is folk think we don't have any in the USofA.

The only people I've ever seen claiming that have been American.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
He cannot be denied the medical care. People always seem to forget that when making these arguments.

I don't, I can even tell you that Reagan signed that piece of law.

And the issue comes afterwards, because sure he's healthy, but he's facing a $200,000 bill for costs. So there's goes the modest house he'd almost paid off half off, and his car that he was almost finished on the lease payments for. And good luck getting loans for new ones because his credit is shot to gak. And all that is gonna take maybe a year to figure out, so as well as trying to recuperate from surgery the guy has a year in financial limbo before starting back at square one.

Medical bills are the single biggest cause of bankruptcy in the US. And to those of us in the rest of the world that just reads as totally insane.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
A better question would be "Where did this cult of personal freedoms came from, and why did it went so out of hand that it now eclipse every other values?''

And how did freedoms get to be so narrowly defined, as purely freedom from government? Whatever happened to the idea that government could play a part in extending your freedoms, such as the idea that you are free from being bankkrupted because you got cancer?

 azazel the cat wrote:

Seaward wrote:
And no, by the way, there's no "waiting for the insurance company's response" before live-saving surgery is performed.

Except for those times when there is.

I sort of expected you to link to an actual example of what you were trying to prove, rather than a case where the insurance company quite clearly said a procedure wasn't covered under policy.

 Vulcan wrote:
Never mind that sitting on all those trillions is CAUSING the economy to recover slowly in the first place...

That's the point. I mean, to a large extent the act of saving and not seeing those savings turn in to investment dollars is what recession is.

But there's no point in just insisting people ought to invest that money. I'm not going to invest my money in something that's going to lose money, nor should you or anyone else. Which leads us to the tragedy of the commons, if we all just invested then there'd probably be a kickstart to the economy, but we don't and so there continues to be no profits to be had, so we all continue to sit on our money rather than invest, and so on and so on.

And then when the economy does start to turn around, and dollars do start to get invested... then do not feth around with that. Do not threaten sequester, or feth about with the debt ceiling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
I sort of expected you to link to an actual example of what you were trying to prove, rather than a case where the insurance company quite clearly said a procedure wasn't covered under policy.

Which is, of course, a completely clear cut thing that never, ever gets debated in a court of law, all the while the person with the condition gets worse. That never happens. And no insurance company has ever run a policy of first denial.

 Seaward wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
So if someone had a massive car accident and needed a lot of surgery in order to save his life, yet this someone worked as a janitor in a high school and therefore couldn't afford it, he shouldn't get it? With socialised medicine he could still live, without it he'd need to have health insurance and then await the insurance company's response.

Well, he'd be a government employee, so the chances he wouldn't have healthcare are pretty slim.

Also, who caused the accident? If it's not our janitor friend, the responsible party is also responsible for the medical bills. Provided they have automobile insurance and aren't, say, illegal entrants to the country driving without any sort of license or financial protection from liability.

And no, by the way, there's no "waiting for the insurance company's response" before live-saving surgery is performed.

There're private schools, so what if he worked at one of those?

What if the insurance company rejected his claim and he couldn't pay for the surgery? What then?

I feel like a poor slob.

 Desubot wrote:

Its still not what im saying at all. and your not even answering the question.
how much money does it take to send a child in a dire situation to go through school.

I am part of small committee at church. We run a school in a country in Africa for about $12K a year (about 200 kids).

You want to help then HELP!

 sebster wrote:
SNIP.

Perhaps it could of been written better.

My argument against social mobility programs of "most" types is that it would put our country further into dept, unless we get all of our spending under control. not whether it is morality right or not. I believe its a fair sentiment to help those in need to get a good education as i believe in the teach a man to fish mentality.

But im not an economist, and i wouldn't know how to balance a complex budget of the united states government.
but i can budget my own as i don't spend more then i have.


Edit: Frazzeled: that's very great that you do such a thing. and yeah id like to say put your money where your mouth is. but im not one too give when i cannot. all of my bills have gone up and im barely making it by (curse you unexpected medical bills!!!!). enough to live. not enough to live lavishly. though i could completely give up my war gaming hobby. would the rest of you? also there is donating time on the weekends which i really ot to do again =/.

 Desubot wrote:

Edit: Frazzeled: that's very great that you do such a thing. and yeah id like to say put your money where your mouth is. but im not one too give when i cannot. all of my bills have gone up and im barely making it by (curse you unexpected medical bills!!!!). enough to live. not enough to live lavishly. though i could completely give up my war gaming hobby. would the rest of you? also there is donating time on the weekends which i really ot to do again =/.

Oh yea, I'm not saying anything is required, just putting down our spend amount to the question.

Back when I was a young caveman in college, I couldn't do anything else so I gave blood. You do what you can in the circumstances you are in.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
So... a counter point about social mobility by none other than Thomas Sowell:

'none other than Thomas Sowell'?

You know he's basically the icon of dodgy pseudo-academia who slides on by because he completely endorses the beliefs of one political faction.

EDIT - I see you note Sowell is a blowhard in your next post. All is good then. Nothing to see here.

His point remains though...

Economic Mobility
Most people are not even surprised any more when they hear about someone who came here from Korea or Vietnam with very little money, and very little knowledge of English, who nevertheless persevered and rose in American society. Nor are we surprised when their children excel in school and go on to professional careers.

Yet, in utter disregard of such plain facts, so-called "social scientists" do studies which conclude that America is no longer a land of opportunity, and that upward mobility is a "myth."

Yeah, so basically he's saying 'sure, people have studied this, but it flies in the face of the anecdotes we like to tell, so their studies are wrong.

Have you dug in deep to review those "studies"? Just asking...

Opportunity is just one factor in economic advancement. How well a given individual or group takes advantage of existing opportunities is another. Only by implicitly (and arbitrarily) assuming that a failure to rise must be due to society's barriers can we say that American society no longer has opportunity for upward social mobility.

The very same attitudes and behavior that landed a father in a lower income bracket can land the son in that same bracket.

This only makes sense if one doesn't understand, or pretends not to understand, that social mobility is only assessed by comparison to other countries. And so his excuse must state that the other developed countries of the world are somehow providing less opportunity, but experience less of an issue with attitudes and behaviour being passed from father to son.

Which is, of course, completely absurd.

Wait...wut? Why must we compare our mobility to other countries?

The welfare state promoted by those who insist that it is society that is keeping some people down makes it unnecessary for many low-income people to exert themselves -- and therefore makes it unnecessary for them to develop their own potential to the fullest.

Which only makes sense if one thought that Europe has a smaller welfare state.

Which is, of course, completely absurd.

Welfare in Europe isn't the same as US. It ain't black in white.

The multiculturalist dogma that says one culture is just as good as another paints people into the cultural corner where they happened to have been born, even if other cultures around them have features that offer better prospects of rising.

That doesn't even half make sense, and is about the stupidest description of multiculturalism I've ever read.

Says the government. Are they going to say "Yep, we're unequal as feth, so help us lord"?

EDIT:

As of 2011, the St. Louis area is home to nine Fortune 500 companies, including Express Scripts, Emerson Electric, Monsanto, Reinsurance Group of America, Ameren, Charter Communications, Peabody Energy, Graybar Electric, and Centene.

From Wiki.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Says the government. Are they going to say "Yep, we're unequal as feth, so help us lord"?

EDIT:

As of 2011, the St. Louis area is home to nine Fortune 500 companies, including Express Scripts, Emerson Electric, Monsanto, Reinsurance Group of America, Ameren, Charter Communications, Peabody Energy, Graybar Electric, and Centene.

From Wiki.

Yeah... so?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Edit: Frazzeled: that's very great that you do such a thing. and yeah id like to say put your money where your mouth is. but im not one too give when i cannot. all of my bills have gone up and im barely making it by (curse you unexpected medical bills!!!!). enough to live. not enough to live lavishly. though i could completely give up my war gaming hobby. would the rest of you? also there is donating time on the weekends which i really ot to do again =/.

Oh yea, I'm not saying anything is required, just putting down our spend amount to the question.

Back when I was a young caveman in college, I couldn't do anything else so I gave blood. You do what you can in the circumstances you are in.

I wish i could give blood, but a bad experiance(I gave blood, they punctured the vein wrong and I hemorrhagic, you could see a lump growing on my arm. I couldnt even bend it. And a girl next to me was forgotten about and they ended up taking too much blood from her. She passed out.)
I try to give, i always give spare cahnge and money to donation boxes.

It's probably not as objective as it needs to be. The data may be skewed - if I took a random survey of people about heavy metal and took a sample of 1000 people, and all I did was patrol bars around Helsinki, I may get a higher proportion of people who like heavy metal than if I took a truly fair representation and asked random people on the streets.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
It's probably not as objective as it needs to be. The data may be skewed - if I took a random survey of people about heavy metal and took a sample of 1000 people, and all I did was patrol bars around Helsinki, I may get a higher proportion of people who like heavy metal than if I took a truly fair representation and asked random people on the streets.

? That study wasn't in just in the St. Louis area dude... think bigger.

EDIT: The entire US tax filers...
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf

 whembly wrote:


Snip

To me, the fact that he dismisses an entire field of science because it doesn't agree with what he believes with its findings is reason enough to ignore him.
There are aslo several things, yes america is the land of opportunity, But only at a certain part in your life
Let me give you an anecdote, my friend got a girl pregnant right out of highschool, he had to get a job right away to support them. So he doesnt get the advantages me and my friends get. Such as going to school full-time, having his parents help with school. The point is, yes he can do it, but the odds are stacked against him.
I know many people who maybe not have kids, but little siblings who need taking care of.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Snip

To me, the fact that he dismisses an entire field of science because it doesn't agree with what he believes with its findings is reason enough to ignore him.

Who... Sowell? Well, the problem here is that far too often, people believe whatever the academia folks expouses it's gospel. (Edit, Sowell was a professor, so he plays that game well).

Take a look at this site or pdf that I recently posted.

I guess one can argue that we should be making it easier... sure. But, to me, I've seen too much "woe is me" mentality...

There are aslo several things, yes america is the land of opportunity, But only at a certain part in your life

Correct... that's life.

Let me give you an anecdote, my friend got a girl pregnant right out of highschool, he had to get a job right away to support them. So he doesnt get the advantages me and my friends get. Such as going to school full-time, having his parents help with school. The point is, yes he can do it, but the odds are stacked against him.

Again... that's life. I can give you just as many anecdote on this too... Some pulled themselves together and made lemonade out of lemons. And, some didn't.

I know many people who maybe not have kids, but little siblings who need taking care of.

So do I... I've known friends where both parents disappeared, and those friends worked (and went to school) to support their siblings.

That's life.

I guess th only thing that can be said is the fact the it is very dependent on the situation people have.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I guess th only thing that can be said is the fact the it is very dependent on the situation people have.

And yeah, that's true.

I also think that there's a lack of effort to EDUCATE people of needs (poor, disabled, single-mom) of programs are available for them. I hear many, many times that people are shocked that "x programs" existed.

I still do not think the the field is as level as it should be. Those families of higher wealth tend to actually be able to help their kids with various projects and college. I remember various Kids from HS deciding to not go to the College counselor because they thought they would never even go to college. Money plays more roles then you think. Not just monetary, but many a poor kid tend not to have help with homework and projects.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I still do not think the the field is as level as it should be. Those families of higher wealth tend to actually be able to help their kids with various projects and college. I remember various Kids from HS deciding to not go to the College counselor because they thought they would never even go to college. Money plays more roles then you think. Not just monetary, but many a poor kid tend not to have help with homework and projects.

I understand that... but, that's life.

Everyone has a chance... but it's impossible to give everyone an equal chance.

That i know, oh boy do i know that. The problem is people screw themselves over with thinking that they cant.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
That i know, oh boy do i know that. The problem is people screw themselves over with thinking that they cant.

100% agreement with you.

 Desubot wrote:
Perhaps it could of been written better.

My argument against social mobility programs of "most" types is that it would put our country further into dept, unless we get all of our spending under control. not whether it is morality right or not. I believe its a fair sentiment to help those in need to get a good education as i believe in the teach a man to fish mentality.

The problem, I think, is that you're focused absolutely on the dollar cost in the present. If you look at the cost of excluding kids that might otherwise be excellent doctors, engineers and scientists, isn't it just as possible to declare you can't afford to exclude that talent from the next generation that will drive your economy forward?

You want to talk about what you can afford, think about breaking the poverty trap, drawing those kids up into the middle class... how can you afford to let another generation be a drain on the federal coffers?

But im not an economist, and i wouldn't know how to balance a complex budget of the united states government.
but i can budget my own as i don't spend more then i have.

The thing most people don't get is that budgeting at the individual level (earn more than you spend) simply stops functioning when you get to the level of the economy.

To explain it as simply as possible, what you spend is another person's income. And what you earn is dependant on someone else spending. That is what economics is, not dollar and cents, but a network of interactions, where earning allows you to spend, and spending is the only way anyone can earn. And so government's role is not just about minding its surplus/deficit, but also to make sure that the overall network of spending and earning continues.

This can mean, in the short term that in certain circumstances where the rest of the economy is saving more than it spends it is not only acceptable but an unquestionably good thing for government to undergo a short term period of spending more than it taxes, to maintain as best it can the above network of overall spending and earning.

[quote=whembly 512244 5377749 ebfcf2b2645ee012a00cf2c1013c4d94.jpgHave you dug in deep to review those "studies"? Just asking...

 sebster wrote:
[quote=whembly 512244 5377749 ebfcf2b2645ee012a00cf2c1013c4d94.jpgHave you dug in deep to review those "studies"? Just asking...

I've read quite a few. And more importantly, I've learned that between people that have completed a study on a subject and released it for peer review, and people rejecting that because they have personal anecdotes, that it is always smarter to back the former and reject the latter..

I've read quite a few too as my ex's dad is part of a state department that help find people jobs and government assistances... who has all of these data points at his finger tips. My state (and I'm sure others are doing this too) are really, REALLY good at collecting these kinds of data and extrapolating on these movements..in fact, I've read quite a bit on the subject.

Most academia reviews on this subject are inherently slanted to the idea that "Our current model is wrong"... and they really go afters the flaws of the system to such degree that they've either ignored or dampen some of the good aspects... Conversely, there a study that I believe you'd be really interested in by Washington University that surmise that the percieved lack of mobility was essentially "Crying Wolf" (and I can't fething find it... you'd appreciate it cause of all the gooey details and datapoints).

Wait...wut? Why must we compare our mobility to other countries?

Because the original claim that set all of this off from Gray Templar stated - "Not everyone has an equal chance, but that was never promised. Its just that in America you have a better chance than anywhere else."

"Better" means in comparison to other countries. And by actually comparing to other countries, we can see that claim is completely and utterly wrong.

Eh... that's rather subjective and maybe it's the "Murrica, rah-rah" mindset... we have it good here imo... but, I can't say by how much because I've never lived anywhere else.

And to look at the issue in a wider view, why wouldn't you look to see how things are working elsewhere in the world. I mean, it's an issue where more is always better (absolute social mobility means true meritocracy, which is both the most efficient of all possible states and the one where the most talented are employed in the most important and highest paid jobs), but where practical realities mean you'll never get there. So the question becomes how close can we actually get?

And the way to do that is by looking at other countries and seeing how well they do at it.

And in my opinion, you shouldn't but too much weight into looking at other countries.

Look, I deal with multiple relational database and health informatic groups. I know how hard it is to analyse complex systems and attempting to do an "apples-to-apples" comparison between countries is almost pointless. There are so many variables in such a review that the combinations / permutations and, let's face it, "human element" to really make a good analysis...

I've learned that lies, damned lies, and statistics... is all true!

Welfare in Europe isn't the same as US. It ain't black in white.

No, it isn't the same. But to just declare US welfare part of the problem of social mobility without any reference to other countries is just terrible, lazy analysis.

Instead, there is scope to look at Europe, and pick apart how their social safety net enhances social mobility, and how the US system might fail to do the same. As a means of reforming the US welfare system to better deliver results that sounds like a sensible approach.

But to just sound off about welfare in the US and its negative impact on personal motivation (especially with the same old rhetoric that was used before the Clinton reforms) and just use it as an excuse about social mobility... well that's just plain lazy.

Yeah, I agree in Sowell's article that it was lazy... but, there's merits to the idea that a well endowed welfare system can disincentivize(sp?) activities towards positive social mobility.

Er... why not? There's always been a good debate in "multiculturalism"...

Sure, but to describe multiculturalism as this thing where people are somehow denied the ability to absorb practices from other cultures is very, very stupid. And to then try to extend that nonsense to some kind of an explanation for why

And, once again, you've also got the problem of assuming it is only an American problem, that somehow the rest of the developed world just doesn't have any kind of multiculturalism of its own.

Sure, every country is dealing with multiculturalism to a certain degree... but, lately, in the U.S.... it's been taboo to attribute any failings on multiculturalism. It's like its racist or something. o.O

Man... you are really stuck on the mobility thing ain't ya?

Hang on, what? Are you telling me that in a conversation on social mobility that I'm talking about social mobility too much?

Fair enough.

Oh... Agreed with you 100%... it's just the how is the problem... the one-size-fits-all mentality is epidemic here in the US... especially in the educational system.

I agree with you on the one size fits all mentality as a problem (right now in Australia there's a series of fights from the states against the Federal government over various issues where the Fed is trying take control - health, education, industrial regulation etc). I'm not sure that really impact social mobility, though.

That's the debate isn't it? How far do we push/pull that lever towards government/free market principle?

No... that's not what I'm saying...

The people who ARE getting care, will EXPECT to get the same level of care. That's a political issue as well as an economic issue... and it'll cost us MORE to run a Canadian model. (I'd still want it tho).

You have to begin to realise that what you pay for healthcare is not absolutely tied to the quality of healthcare you receive. That other systems actually deliver the exact same procedures for less dollars.

Under a Canadian system, or many other systems around the world, you could actually receive the same quality of care you receive today, and save money.

No... that's false. I don't think you've grasp what it would take for us to convert to something like the Canadian model. It won't be like a "switch".

Remember... we're weird and we have weird ideas/wants...

I'm telling you this who's been privy to discussion with my CEO of my healthcare orgranization. Here are two things I've learned:
1) ACA act is good... because, eventually everyone who walks in the door will be covered with some sort of insurance. Which means, they'd get some reimbursement for every visit.
--- you have to understand, these are business men looking at $$$$
2) For the US to go nationalised, we'd have to experience some sort of economic collapse. That'd be the only way that the US citizen would tolerate a massive takeover of the Health insurance companies. Don't get me wrong, they want the Canadian model but not at the expense of experiencing another Great Depression.

Eh... true. We're weird people...

No weirder than anyone else

It's just that for a whole lot of reasons, we end up talking about your weirdness more than anyone else's.

Hey, we have people phreaking over bewbs! But, hey, we're fine with peoples head blown off on TeeVee...

See... weird. What's wrong with bewbs?

It's up there... but, divorce is the largest cause.

Sure, but divorce is at least up to the couple, and I can't see any government anywhere in the world saying 'if you decide to end your marriage we'll pay for all the costs'.

Whereas most governments have said 'if you get really sick the cost of getting better won't make you lose your house'.

Whaaaa? Government don't pay for all of the bankruptcy cost. Where did you get that idea?

Also, in most states, you don't lose your house (and your car too).

There are problems with the US Health System... but, bankruptcy isn't it.

As to your issue with "mobility", check this out:
http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/itv/articles/?id=1920

The findings are valuable, but the conclusions are screwy (do we really want another text wall with me explaining why? ).

? Why not? That's why I shared it with ya... there's a PDF with more gooey details.

And it's worth pointing out that social mobility across the developed world is actually much better than most people assume. The idea that a parent in the lowest quintile is more likely than not to have children who are poor is false - the kids a more likely than not to be middle class. And the same is true for rich parents (but not mega-rich parents) - their kids are actually more likely than not to be middle class.

Yeah, I'd go with that...

The issue is first of all with Gray Templar's assertion, that is believed by many Americans - that a person is more likely to 'make it' there than anywhere else. That's simply false, and demonstrated as such over hundreds of studies.

Like I said... "Murrica...rah-rah"????

And the second issue is with the idea that while things may actually be better than most believe, they can get much better without that much more effort.

Well... sure, if you're ready to take the risk.

I can probably find a job that requires minimal travel and fully equiped home office... and, i could problaby move to Costa Rica and live like real king with my purchase power there. But... I don't wanna leave the states. *shrugs*