Long live the new king! :D

Mr.Doobie wrote:

But regardless, the European Union is more or less a voluntary thing, yes? It doesn't cover ever country in Europe and each country has the choice to A) meet the standards set to join the European Union, and B) join the European Union having met the standards and requirements? While every individual State is a part of the United States whether they like it or not (see: every Southern State).

That might be a gross exaggeration, don't you think? I remember this recent thread about Texas seceding, and it was barely 1% of the population that signed off on the petition. So, uh, I think most Americans are pretty comfortable being part of the United States.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

My point is that I would argue that due to America's sheer size, it is more geographically diverse than both Germany and the Netherlands. This partially leads to the American government having to cater to a more culturally diverse population than either country. This is only exacerbated by other factors, such as the legacy of colonialism, a fairly recent civil war, a popular destination for immigration from poor economic conditions, the Atlantic slave trade, etc etc. Culturally, I would argue that African Americans are different from middle class Caucasians are different from peckerwoods are different from Latino Americans and they have different values and ways of seeing the world. And then you go state by state....

India is an extremely large, extremely geographically varied and, oh, hey, they've got a culturally diverse population that's got a chequered past as well. Also, they have a national health care. It's not very good, true, but it's still there.

Also, um, Europe has a fair share of ethnically diverse groups, plenty of immigrants, and, um, I see your fairly recent civil war and raise you an even more recent World War.

I'm not saying the unique make-up of the United States influences why the country doesn't have public healthcare. I am saying that it's a bit of convenient excuse to cite the size of the country as the reason why you don't have public healthcare, because I think that's hardly the main reason.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Quote :

I never said it wasn't. I said I think the reason that universal health care specifically has a hard time being accepted not because of the sheer number of people, but because of the vastly diverse and often uncompromisingly independent mindsets over there.

Well then we're all just talking past each other again. My work here is done.

Haha yeah I am not arguing against that point at all.

Actually I was only really responding to Jay in the first place.

Quote :

That might be a gross exaggeration, don't you think?

Hyperbole is my favorite hobby. Just ask grmbles.

Quote :

I'm not saying the unique make-up of the United States influences why the country doesn't have public healthcare. I am saying that it's a bit of convenient excuse to cite the size of the country as the reason why you don't have public healthcare, because I think that's hardly the main reason.

And I agree it's hardly the main reason, but I don't think anyone was ever really arguing that in the first place.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Quote :

That might be a gross exaggeration, don't you think?

Hyperbole is my favorite hobby. Just ask grmbles.

Quote :

I'm not saying the unique make-up of the United States influences why the country doesn't have public healthcare. I am saying that it's a bit of convenient excuse to cite the size of the country as the reason why you don't have public healthcare, because I think that's hardly the main reason.

And I agree it's hardly the main reason, but I don't think anyone was ever really arguing that in the first place.

No, the main reason is that too many citizens don't want their taxes to benefit "those people." These citizens used to like government spending. But then the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were passed, and LBJ began promoting on his Great Society programs, and Government spending became as popular as a skunk at a picnic about 5 minutes later.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Hyperbole is my favorite hobby. Just ask grmbles.

Sometimes, yeah.

And understatement is mine.

rachel wrote:

the main reason is that too many citizens don't want their taxes to benefit "those people."

Basically.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Jay/Cris wrote:

I'm not saying the unique make-up of the United States influences why the country doesn't have public healthcare. I am saying that it's a bit of convenient excuse to cite the size of the country as the reason why you don't have public healthcare, because I think that's hardly the main reason.

And I agree it's hardly the main reason, but I don't think anyone was ever really arguing that in the first place.

Um. It was literally the first argument that kicked off this particular discussion:

TheHedonist wrote:

Jay/Cris wrote:

But yes, great American football and baseball teams definitely make up for your fucked up health care system and your splendid rates of education, teen pregnancy and gay bashing. Go America!

To be fair you guys are a lot smaller and more homogenous.

I don't think he meant that was the only reason but whatever...

Has anybody alerted Superman that Maxima has seized power in the Netherlands?

Knorg wrote:

Has anybody alerted Superman that Maxima has seized power in the Netherlands?

I tried but Superman is kind of busy these days.

Jay/Cris wrote:

Um. It was literally the first argument that kicked off this particular discussion:

Actually it was a throwaway sound bite that you decided to run with until it became an argument, and it doesn't really prove your point, either.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

I don't think he meant that was the only reason but whatever...

Yes, but then it became the focal point of the discussion. Seriously, what is this? "We didn't start this discussion because we can't seem to win it?" What?

TheHedonist wrote:

Jay/Cris wrote:

Um. It was literally the first argument that kicked off this particular discussion:

Actually it was a throwaway sound bite that you decided to run with until it became an argument, and it doesn't really prove your point, either.

So, you didn't mean it that way, but you didn't feel the need to point that out right until after the argument had been conceded?

Sure sure.

spork wrote:

Knorg wrote:

Has anybody alerted Superman that Maxima has seized power in the Netherlands?

I tried but Superman is kind of busy these days.

Then this is a job for SOEPERMAN!

Knorg wrote:

spork wrote:

Knorg wrote:

Has anybody alerted Superman that Maxima has seized power in the Netherlands?

I tried but Superman is kind of busy these days.

Then this is a job for SOEPERMAN!

I keep thinking of a man made out of a bar of Soap. This is, interesting to say the least.

Jay/Cris wrote:

So, you didn't mean it that way, but you didn't feel the need to point that out right until after the argument had been conceded?

Sure sure.

Hahahah I don't remember conceding a damn thing. And I did mean it that way. I meant it exactly that way, and proceeded to elaborate on my point in later posts. I could hash up a bunch of quotes to prove it but A.) I'm lazy and B.) I'm pretty sure no one cares. You (and grmbz, etc.) are correct in that that is not the sole reason America does not have socialized medicine/our education system is, but for certain pockets, a mess. But you're not going to sell me that setting up a health care system for a country that is, by population, a twentieth (or, in Germany's case, a fifth) the size of ours isn't a million times easier, especially when a socialized healthcare system is (from what I'm told) something of a bureaucratic nightmare at the best of times.

Here's the thing: Massachusetts had damned-near socialized healthcare even before Obamacare, and it was (from what I'm told) a more-or-less working system. Which would be hopeful for the state of US healthcare if Massachusetts weren't about as big as the whole of the Netherlands.

I've had spotty computer access as of late and don't have the time to consistently address every internet argument I've embroiled myself in. It seemed like Reepy and Doobie had it covered so I backed out. So I guess you've won, yeah, if you call that winning.

Keep trying to school me about the country I've lived in my whole life, though. That is totally not an obnoxious thing to do, it does not make you sound like Mikey in the least, and I'm sure your panties would remain completely un-twisted if I tried to do the same.

PS as much as grmbz makes a fair point (re: the population gap between Germany and the Netherlands) I don't think it's quite fair or instructive to compare a population gap of, say, seventy million to a population gap of about two hundred and fifty million. Just throwing that out there.

Edit: actually, Mass. is about half the size of the Netherlands, and half the population. Which actually furthers my point.

TheHedonist wrote:

you're not going to sell me that setting up a health care system for a country that is, by population, a twentieth (or, in Germany's case, a fifth) the size of ours isn't a million times easier, especially when a socialized healthcare system is (from what I'm told) something of a bureaucratic nightmare at the best of times.

Yeah, but according to Wikipedia (shut up) health care is technically up to the individual states (much like it is up to the individual countries in the EU). As you said, Massachusetts managed it. So if this could be done state-by-state, and the individual states don't actually do it (to the point where Obama apparently finds it necessary to force the issue on a nation-wide level) then you can't really cite size.