• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

France Riots-Liberal Policies Don't Work

I red all the topic.
Don't mix up 2 events very different.

First what is called the "riots" (term very inflated) during winter.
All numbers I red are exaggerated.
Most of informations are false.
There was not a civil war in France! :mrgreen:
Take a look on the map, shown by CNN which made laugh all France a week long:
france_cnn.jpg

It gives an idea of the quality of the "information" given by a "journalist" unable to copy a map.
I was surprised to learn that Strasbourg sits in Germany and Toulouse in Switzerland! :mrgreen:
Not very serious really.

The second event is no more a riot.
It's march and struggle to keep the social rights which are very important for French workers and French society.
Of course, every company has the right to fire employees in France, like everywhere else but they are obliged to have a reason and to indemnify the worker sent off.
The new law (CPE) wanted to suppress the reason and the indemnisation.
Workers didn't accept that and the law has been removed.
 
The French said:
I red all the topic.
Don't mix up 2 events very different.

First what is called the "riots" (term very inflated) during winter.
All numbers I red are exaggerated.
Most of informations are false.
There was not a civil war in France! :mrgreen:
Take a look on the map, shown by CNN which made laugh all France a week long:
france_cnn.jpg

It gives an idea of the quality of the "information" given by a "journalist" unable to copy a map.
I was surprised to learn that Strasbourg sits in Germany and Toulouse in Switzerland! :mrgreen:
Not very serious really.

The second event is no more a riot.
It's march and struggle to keep the social rights which are very important for French workers and French society.
Of course, every company has the right to fire employees in France, like everywhere else but they are obliged to have a reason and to indemnify the worker sent off.
The new law (CPE) wanted to suppress the reason and the indemnisation.
Workers didn't accept that and the law has been removed.

Looks like the the names are layed over the wrong map graphic. That is pretty funny. These types of blunders and misrepresentations not limited to CNN or US news outlets, though. I've been to Europe many times (England, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Austria and Ireland). My job brings me there (from the US) quite often. I really enjoy it. In fact, I've been back on my own dime with my family a few times because I enjoy certain areas quite a bit. We'll be doing a leisurely tour of Germany (Munchen, Berlin and Dresden), Italy (Rome) and London at the end of this month!

My point is, as much as I enjoy the areas of Europe I've been to and people I've met, I have found myself appalled by some of the 'misinformation' coming from European news outlets both print and TV. Also, it might be hard for you to see it, but I clearly see the 'slant' in the reporting as well. Even when the facts are accurate, the spin can cause nausea.

I know every thinks 'our news is the best' and 'our news tells the REAL truth', etc, etc. Trust me, you are as misinformed as we are! ;)
 
manthe said:
I know every thinks 'our news is the best' and 'our news tells the REAL truth', etc, etc. Trust me, you are as misinformed as we are! ;)

so what is the most unbiased news channel then? I would have to opt for, in Britain at least the BBC news24, lol, big wow there. Most biased ive ever watched was probably fox, cnn was ok.
 
Last edited:
manthe said:
My point is, as much as I enjoy the areas of Europe I've been to and people I've met, I have found myself appalled by some of the 'misinformation' coming from European news outlets both print and TV. Also, it might be hard for you to see it, but I clearly see the 'slant' in the reporting as well. Even when the facts are accurate, the spin can cause nausea.
I know every thinks 'our news is the best' and 'our news tells the REAL truth', etc, etc. Trust me, you are as misinformed as we are! ;)
Of course you're right.
In France too, it's impossible to have a real information in TV News.
Fortunately, some newspapers stay free from the Power and their websites too.
You can compare informations from different sources IF YOU WANT TO!
But French TV lies too, just a little bit less than Fox News.
 
Calm2Chaos said:
Perfectly good reason to not have UHC is the higher tax rates. Again your getting into taking more of my money and giving it to those that don't want to work. I'll take the lower taxes and the private healthcare, quality is better any how IMO

We're taking money from the rich to benefit the poor, such as free schools, healthcare etc. Jesus and Ghandi preached that kinda stuff. Its' called good morals. Taking care of the poor is what every developed nation should do.
 
GarzaUK said:
We're taking money from the rich to benefit the poor, such as free schools, healthcare etc. Jesus and Ghandi preached that kinda stuff. Its' called good morals. Taking care of the poor is what every developed nation should do.
I agree.
French society, which can seem "passeist society" in a Globalized Trading World is founded on a "sharing system" opposed to a "individual system". Most of umemployed really want to get a job but it becomes harder in a system where you can just survive even if you work 8 hours a day.
I know it can be hard to understand but we don't believe in what we call an "anglo saxon way of life".
I know that, seeing France from outside can bring lot of questions in the 21st century but, we want to keep our model of socety, with all his defaults, only the future can tell who will be right. But I really think we must try.
 
GarzaUK said:
We're taking money from the rich to benefit the poor, such as free schools, healthcare etc. Jesus and Ghandi preached that kinda stuff. Its' called good morals. Taking care of the poor is what every developed nation should do.

It would be nice to think so. Shame about reality!!
 
The French said:
I agree.
French society, which can seem "passeist society" in a Globalized Trading World is founded on a "sharing system" opposed to a "individual system". Most of umemployed really want to get a job but it becomes harder in a system where you can just survive even if you work 8 hours a day.
I know it can be hard to understand but we don't believe in what we call an "anglo saxon way of life".
I know that, seeing France from outside can bring lot of questions in the 21st century but, we want to keep our model of socety, with all his defaults, only the future can tell who will be right. But I really think we must try.

I have to say that the "anglo-Saxon economy" thing in France is over-hyped by the French Media and Government.

During the run-up to the vote on the EU Constitution, French Media was saying it would lead to an Anglo-Saxon economy (whatever that is) for the whole of the EU. While the British Media was saying the exact opposite, that the EU would run like France. Which is it??

Neither France or the UK are in the top 10 countries for standard of living, the US just scraped in at 10. I believe that France and the UK are poor economic models. Sigh, why can't we be more like the Scandinavians.
 
Calm2Chaos said:
Perfectly good reason to not have UHC is the higher tax rates. Again your getting into taking more of my money and giving it to those that don't want to work. I'll take the lower taxes and the private healthcare, quality is better any how IMO

Well if you had look at any of data from OECD I linked to in earlier posts you would see that UHC plays a very little roll in the higher tax rates. But with high taxes you also take money from people that don’t want to work like for example rich kids that have inherit a lot of money:)

manthe said:
And yet the USA is one of the richest, most powerful nations on the planet. It is consistantly in the top 10 on the HDI and the contributions to science, medicine, technology, higher education, etc. are dis-proportionately high.

Sooo, we're obviously doing something right!

Well it could have other reason that you are in the top, but I don’t know if it’s worth starting a debate about it. But what is interesting is that both right wing people in Sweden and probably in other countries and I also guess this American thread starter suggest that you should follow the American example. At the same time very few country are willing or able to do that.

Like for example the only OECD countries with lower government revenue (mostly taxes) are Japan and they have even worse budget deficit then USA and Chorea that are amongst the bottom OECD country. But yes there are some countries with slightly less government spending but they keep there economy in better check and probably don’t spend as much as you on there military. (It is also older data from some of the countries).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/444141640346

From: http://www.oecd.org/topicstatsportal/0,2647,en_2825_495684_1_1_1_1_1,00.html

And the closest country to USA low governmental spending on healthcare is Mexico not exactly one of the best OECD economys…

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/59/49/35529832.xls

http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,2340,en_2825_495642_2085200_1_1_1_1,00.html
 
GarzaUK said:
We're taking money from the rich to benefit the poor, such as free schools, healthcare etc. Jesus and Ghandi preached that kinda stuff. Its' called good morals. Taking care of the poor is what every developed nation should do.

Get jobs and take care of yourself. Your taking money from the working class and giving to the lazy class. Sorry I worked for it I want to keep it. You work for it aI think you should keep it
 
Calm2Chaos said:
Get jobs and take care of yourself. Your taking money from the working class and giving to the lazy class. Sorry I worked for it I want to keep it. You work for it aI think you should keep it

That about the people who can't work like for example the gravely handicaped? Also that about the children should they suffer from easily treated diseaces just because there family are "lazy". Also that evidence do you have except your opinion that UHC is bad for the working class. Self I have data that suggest the opposite. Like for example that countries with UHC useally spend less then 10 % of GDP on healthcare while USA spend around 15 % of GDP. Also with UHC the rich have to pay more because of the tax system. Also that we in sweden have almost 80 % productivity in our workforce. And many of the rest of the 20 % either do productive stuff like studing or can't help there situation like for example that they are really sick. So all this suggest that the working class benefit from UHC. But yes it can be bad for the poor rich...
 
Bergslagstroll said:
That about the people who can't work like for example the gravely handicaped? Also that about the children should they suffer from easily treated diseaces just because there family are "lazy". Also that evidence do you have except your opinion that UHC is bad for the working class. Self I have data that suggest the opposite. Like for example that countries with UHC useally spend less then 10 % of GDP on healthcare while USA spend around 15 % of GDP. Also with UHC the rich have to pay more because of the tax system. Also that we in sweden have almost 80 % productivity in our workforce. And many of the rest of the 20 % either do productive stuff like studing or can't help there situation like for example that they are really sick. So all this suggest that the working class benefit from UHC. But yes it can be bad for the poor rich...

We have disabiltiy, longterm disability, SS, medicare and medicade and numerous other programs to assist those that you mentioned. Not sure why you think these people are just left out in the cold to die. And I am not talking about Government spending. I am talking about person taxable income. I am taxed about 30% on my income at the moment, how much are you taxed in your income in Sewden. And I am not saying that NHC is not worthwhile or benificial in some countries. I do not however think it will be better for the US.
 
Calm2Chaos said:
We have disabiltiy, longterm disability, SS, medicare and medicade and numerous other programs to assist those that you mentioned. Not sure why you think these people are just left out in the cold to die.

It's because there are soooooo many people out there from Europe and elsewhere that have absolutely NO CLUE how things work here in the US. They think they do. They make grand sweeping assumptions and admonishments as if they know how our systems work, but the truth is - they don't. They are misinformed and misled by their own media. They take this misinformation or lack of information and couple it with there deep, irrational prejudice and smug, holier-than-thou attitude and...voila...European 'opinion'.
 
manthe said:
It's because there are soooooo many people out there from Europe and elsewhere that have absolutely NO CLUE how things work here in the US. They think they do. They make grand sweeping assumptions and admonishments as if they know how our systems work, but the truth is - they don't. They are misinformed and misled by their own media. They take this misinformation or lack of information and couple it with there deep, irrational prejudice and smug, holier-than-thou attitude and...voila...European 'opinion'.
It is because there are soooooo many ppl here in the US who have absolutely no idea about anything yet proclaim to self rightousness and unwillingness to accept criticism regardless of simply on the basis that those ppl are not American?
Yet you provide no facts, no sources to back up your claim.
 
jfuh said:
It is because there are soooooo many ppl here in the US who have absolutely no idea about anything yet proclaim to self rightousness and unwillingness to accept criticism regardless of simply on the basis that those ppl are not American?
Yet you provide no facts, no sources to back up your claim.

Now come on. I think it's pretty evident. All people do it, not just Europeans. We all bitch about stuff we have no idea about. I bitch about the speed limit, but for all I know, there's a very justifiable reason it is so low.:mrgreen:
 
Kelzie said:
Now come on. I think it's pretty evident. All people do it, not just Europeans. We all bitch about stuff we have no idea about. I bitch about the speed limit, but for all I know, there's a very justifiable reason it is so low.:mrgreen:

...to limit the damage that female drivers can do?;)
 
RightatNYU said:
...to limit the damage that female drivers can do?;)

Well that's silly. Why would they do that?:mrgreen:
 
jfuh said:
It is because there are soooooo many ppl here in the US who have absolutely no idea about anything yet proclaim to self rightousness and unwillingness to accept criticism regardless of simply on the basis that those ppl are not American?
Yet you provide no facts, no sources to back up your claim.

What in the world are you talking about? Have you read the thread? Did you see that I was replying to another post? How is what you interjected germain at all? We were talking about social services available to those who can not work. I was talking about the fact that many, many people that do not live in the US make false assumptions, constantly about how we do nothing to help the poor or infirmed. Many people that live elsewhere have no clue about the social services available here, yet they blather on and on about what a crappy society we have and how eveil we are for letting the sick and handicapped suffer and die.

What 'facts' or 'sources' could I provide to illustrate what I was talking about? That doesn't even make sense. That's like me asking you to providea source for the statement that you made above. It's retarded. Infact, no offence toyou personally, but your entire post was pretty retarded.

And another thing. There is a big difference between constructive criticism and admonishing and/or 'carping'. A lot of what we get on this board and elsewhere is just finger pointing, name calling, snarky comments and b1tching. It's just common sense that when you hear that sort of cr@p coming from someone, talking 'bad' about something you happen to like/love and/or respect, a human's natural posture/reaction will be defensive.

You should also look at the reactions from others (such as the French) when they hear or read 'criticism' coming from the USA. My goodness! The indignance and arrogance is astounding. Hmmmmm...notice any similarities there? Perhaps one should not dish it out if they are not willing to receive as well.
 
Kelzie said:
Now come on. I think it's pretty evident. All people do it, not just Europeans. We all bitch about stuff we have no idea about. I bitch about the speed limit, but for all I know, there's a very justifiable reason it is so low.:mrgreen:

You're right, of course!

I gotta stop coming to this site. It's not good for my blood pressure!
 
manthe said:
You're right, of course!

I gotta stop coming to this site. It's not good for my blood pressure!

Good luck. I've said that a million times. This place is like crack.
 
manthe said:
It's because there are soooooo many people out there from Europe and elsewhere that have absolutely NO CLUE how things work here in the US. They think they do. They make grand sweeping assumptions and admonishments as if they know how our systems work, but the truth is - they don't. They are misinformed and misled by their own media. They take this misinformation or lack of information and couple it with there deep, irrational prejudice and smug, holier-than-thou attitude and...voila...European 'opinion'.


The whole concept doesn't make sense to me (NHC), At least in this country. I think it ends up hurting people in this country, but i think it ends up hurting people globally as well. Through less R&D for medicinces and medical procedures and medical technology.

At some point it seems that we just herd our poor and infermed up and shoot them. I don't understand how anybody with an ounce of sense could think that these people are just left with nothing but time to die. No the systems not perfect and things go wrong. BUt with 300,000,000 people thats going to happen. When it comes to critical care and life saving needs i'll park me a$$ right here thank you
 
Calm2Chaos said:
We have disabiltiy, longterm disability, SS, medicare and medicade and numerous other programs to assist those that you mentioned. Not sure why you think these people are just left out in the cold to die. And I am not talking about Government spending. I am talking about person taxable income. I am taxed about 30% on my income at the moment, how much are you taxed in your income in Sewden. And I am not saying that NHC is not worthwhile or benificial in some countries. I do not however think it will be better for the US.

There did I say that “these people are just left out in the cold to die”? All I did was asked you if though they should get help and I glad that you think they should. Also I believe that people with out insurance can get help even if that maybe not always get the help there need in USA. But if you evidence that says that they always get the help they need I would be glad to see it.

But back to the issue there you said that UHC means taking money from the working class and giving it to the lazy class. But you have not showed any proof of that and you have not either disputed my facts against you claim. The only argument you have maid is that our total tax rate is much higher in Sweden then USA, but you haven’t showed that UHC caused it.

But I will show my data again for you even if I think you will ignore it:

Totally spending of GDP on healthcare in %:
Sweden: 9,4 % (roughly the same amount for the other UHC countries)
USA: 15 %

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/28/35529791.xls

That does that mean that of all the economic spending in Sweden 9,4 % are going to health care while in USA 15 %. Also as I already claimed the working class is much larger then the "lazy class" in Sweden so even if they have to pay the entire cost for the “lazy” it wouldn’t be that much. That at the same the rich pays in much more then the working class because of the tax system therefore both substitute the cost of the “lazy” and maybe even so much they cover the entire cost for the “lazy” so they even substitute the cost for the working class.

That at the same time in the USA the rich don’t substitute your health care cost because you have private insurance that either you have to pay directly or be drawn from the salary. That at the same time you along with the rich have to pay for the cost for the people without insurance plus the cost for all the governmental employees.

So my conclusion from that is the cost is higher for the working class in the USA then in Sweden. Because the total cost is higher in the USA and it's less fairly distrubited.


Also if you like you can multiply 15 % with ,44 (% goverment pays for) and for Sweden 9,4 % with ,852 (% goverment pays for) and see that the difference between tax rates in USA and Sweden have very little do with UHC…

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/59/49/35529832.xls

Also if you want you can look at the other data:
http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,2340,en_2825_495642_2085200_1_1_1_1,00.html


Calm2Chaos said:
The whole concept doesn't make sense to me (NHC), At least in this country. I think it ends up hurting people in this country, but i think it ends up hurting people globally as well. Through less R&D for medicinces and medical procedures and medical technology.

Well this is a very interesting study then it comes to R&D

http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/news/en/Submission-Baker.pdf
 
Bergslagstroll said:
There did I say that “these people are just left out in the cold to die”? All I did was asked you if though they should get help and I glad that you think they should. Also I believe that people with out insurance can get help even if that maybe not always get the help there need in USA. But if you evidence that says that they always get the help they need I would be glad to see it.


I think everyone should get help if they are very sick or injured regaurdless of circumstances. And there are numerous programs (stated in the prior post) that assure that happening. If you have an accident and walk into a emergency room you will be gotten medical assistance.

Bergslagstroll said:
But back to the issue there you said that UHC means taking money from the working class and giving it to the lazy class. But you have not showed any proof of that and you have not either disputed my facts against you claim. The only argument you have maid is that our total tax rate is much higher in Sweden then USA, but you haven’t showed that UHC caused it.

But I will show my data again for you even if I think you will ignore it:

Totally spending of GDP on healthcare in %:
Sweden: 9,4 % (roughly the same amount for the other UHC countries)
USA: 15 %

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/28/35529791.xls


Your correct. Your country of 9,000,000 spends less of your GDP on healthcare then my country of 300,000,000. But from what I have read there are other taxes and fee's levied to fund your healthcare.

Sweden's costs for its health services amounted to SEK 178 billion in 2000, a figure which includes pharmaceutical preparations and dental care. This corresponded to 8.5% of GNP. Services provided or financed by the county councils accounted for some 80% of this figure.


The health services account for some 89% of the operations of the county councils. 71% (2001) of these operations are financed from tax revenues. The county councils are entitled to levy a proportional tax on the incomes of their residents, the average tax rate being 10%. Other important revenue sources are grants and payments for certain services received from central government, in total 19%. Patient fees amount to 4% of county council revenue.


County council revenues, and thus the funding of the health services, have diminished in recent years due to reductions in the tax base. To counteract this, the county councils reduced their expenditure in real terms by 1.5% per year during the 1990s. Patients spend less time in hospital and receive more outpatient care. The number of beds in short-term somatic care fell from 4.4 per 1,000 inhabitants in 1985 to 2.4 per 1,000 inhabitants in 2002. The corresponding figures for psychiatric care were 2.5 in 1985 and 0.6 in 2001. It is possible that patients will become more aware of the reductions in the future, when the potential for further streamlining of the health services has been exhausted.


This also does not reflect the fact that private care is also on the rise in Sweden. Nor the fact that we have more illegal immigrants draining this system then you have total population. It sounds like there are also other taxes levied and fee's issued to support the NHC.
Bergslagstroll said:
That does that mean that of all the economic spending in Sweden 9,4 % are going to health care while in USA 15 %. Also as I already claimed the working class is much larger then the "lazy class" in Sweden so even if they have to pay the entire cost for the “lazy” it wouldn’t be that much. That at the same the rich pays in much more then the working class because of the tax system therefore both substitute the cost of the “lazy” and maybe even so much they cover the entire cost for the “lazy” so they even substitute the cost for the working class.

A population of 9 million with unemployment at 6%. Not to mention the healthcare industry alone employs 7% of your entire population.

Bergslagstroll said:
That at the same time in the USA the rich don’t substitute your health care cost because you have private insurance that either you have to pay directly or be drawn from the salary. That at the same time you along with the rich have to pay for the cost for the people without insurance plus the cost for all the governmental employees.


Anyone that pays taxes helps pay for the programs used within this country, rich or poor. THe government funds and supports numerous health service programs.
Bergslagstroll said:
So my conclusion from that is the cost is higher for the working class in the USA then in Sweden. Because the total cost is higher in the USA and it's less fairly distrubited.


Also if you like you can multiply 15 % with ,44 (% goverment pays for) and for Sweden 9,4 % with ,852 (% goverment pays for) and see that the difference between tax rates in USA and Sweden have very little do with UHC…

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/59/49/35529832.xls

Also if you want you can look at the other data:
http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,2340,en_2825_495642_2085200_1_1_1_1,00.html




Well this is a very interesting study then it comes to R&D

http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/news/en/Submission-Baker.pdf

The other needs that taxes are used for will not dissapear. What that means is that 15% your talking about is now going to have to provide healthcare for 300,000,000 people. If it doesn't cost me more, assuming all other taxes per normal then I might consider it. I would also have to be assured that my care and my choice would not suffer either. I do believe that government sponsored medical R&D would be greatly reduced in order to shift funds to a NHS.

I also think it's very difficult to fairly compare entities in 2 countries so vastly different in almost every way.
 
Back
Top Bottom