The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

America vs the World: Quality of Life

Short Read

Some of the claims in the article are untrue (70% of taxes going to the military) and others are just nuts (the government is going to lock the place down...they don’t want their “recruits” escaping. They don’t want YOU escaping)

However, let's take a look at the primary claim:

"You (Americans) have the worst quality of life in the developed world – by a wide margin"

and some of the supporting claims

Americans have:

-less access to health care

-poorer diets (less healthy)

-Low quality food (more processed, more contamination, etc)

-More reliance on meds

-Less vacation time (more stress)

-Expensive education (starting life with high debt)

-Greater Debt Overall

-Higher Bankruptucy rates (see above on debts)

-Less freedom (drug tests, surveillence)

-Misinformed citizenry (Fox News, Right/Left wing media)

-An uneducated population

-Corrupt politicians

-Crushing Debt

-etc, etc, etc.

I'd love to hear from anyone, but especially those of you who reside outside of America and can provide objective viewpoints.

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on February 2, 2011 at 8:36pm

And for those that can't afford it?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MCT on February 2, 2011 at 8:42pm

SS,

They cannot use the roads.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cindy on February 2, 2011 at 9:46pm

who is going to pay the road fee for your customers and employees, to get to your place of business to either a: make you money or b: give you money?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MCT on February 2, 2011 at 10:35pm

Cindy,

I want nobody to give me money for nothing. Anyone who wants to go on the road will pay. Whether they are a customer or employee. It isn't comlex. Ever paid a toll? Ever paid for the ability to use a facility?

Permalink Reply by Cindy on February 2, 2011 at 11:06pm

Well, I never said anything about someone giving you something for nothing, simply asked who should pay for it. No, I never actually paid a toll.

I will not go to a place of business if I have to pay for parking. Do not care if it is only a meter box, not paying it. If they want my business they will accomodate, if not I will go elsewhere.

Would go into it more, but it is almost bedtime.

Permalink Reply by Willow on February 3, 2011 at 11:19pm

If you had a business on a road that required a toll, you can be absolutely certain that a lot of people will not visit your business. They will go to another establishment where they do not have to pay. Your business will suffer. Plain and simple, you will lose money.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MCT on February 2, 2011 at 8:48pm

SS,

I am not opposed to loans while a person gets back on their feet, but if left free from coercion from the government, a person should be able to afford driving on the road. If they bought health insurance, then they should be able to get money from their insurance company, in the event that they are a disabled driver.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on February 2, 2011 at 9:02pm

You are assuming they can get health insurance. And you are assuming that banks will lend the necessary funds. These are the same banks that caused the financial crisis.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MCT on February 2, 2011 at 11:16pm

SS,

It is my impression that the real estate bubble was partly caused by government forced sub-prime loans. And those banks might as well be instruments of the corrupt government giving special treatment to the banks. In a relatively free market, there is no reason why a bank wouldn't give a loan or why an insurance company would not give insurance.

Permalink Reply by Park Bierbower on February 2, 2011 at 9:14pm

What you are talking about is essentially anarchy and would lead to the dissolution of modern society. You are advocating giving control of infrastructure to business~ roads and utilities. I'm sorry, but that is about as insane an idea that I can think of. That would be, in essence, giving control of those services to ONE person~ a business operates in its own interests, its own profits, and for its own survival. You would pay the fee for any road you go on? Are you serious??? You talk about "freedom" and liberty, but you want to give that power to businesses! Imagine the uprising if people had to pay to use roads! Imagine if you had to pay for police, firefighters, and other emergency responders before you got their service~ and if you didn't, you were denied service! You may think you are imagining some sort of American/Capitalist utopia, but thats only because you were raised with that notion. What you are describing would be more reminiscent of the Mad Max movies, not modern society as we know it! Companies are not people, they are made of people~ just how religions are comprised of people and are able to commit atrocities in the name of their own interests. You are talking about allowing monopolies, stripping security and functionality from local communities, and essentially selling every single person into functional slavery. It is completely absurd~ there must be a balance between the two~ and if given the choice, I will always side with the organization that I'd have a say in (through voting at the least, and public outcry) before siding with an entity that exists only for its own survival.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MCT on February 2, 2011 at 11:09pm

Park,

The only power the business that builds and operates the road is charging for its use. Your emotions are getting the better of you. I am talking about the immorality of forced taxation.

Voluntary taxation. Paid citizenship. There is a multitude of ways to organize things that do not entail assault on the individual. Anarchy? Government should uphold individual rights. The only monopoly would be government's control of physical force.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Park Bierbower on February 2, 2011 at 7:20pm

Michael, I have a lot of respect for you stemming from our other discussions, but I have to contest this primitive market theory when it comes to capitalism. When you say the best product/deal/bargain results is simply wrong. When you have people, like a municipality, that bid on a project, they go for the cheapest/most affordable, not the highest quality. A competitive market does not drive down prices, especially when the product is a limited commadity~ that actually drives up prices. This notion that you can get the best deal through capitalism is simply wrong, especially when you consider that quality of product is not necessarily productive when it comes to profit. The first incandescent lightbulbs did not have a several year life span, in fact, some are still burning. Razors have been created that never dull, but are not sold~ why? because that kind of quality cuts into profits. Ultimately, in capitalism, the seller will do what is best for profit, which usually entails the buyer losing out in quality or cost. It is not a give and take system, it is a 'take' system, short and simple. Market theory is complex, but I just get riled up when I hear people try to simplify it when it really just isn't the case. If buyers don't have enough weight, they will pay what they are willing to, not what they want to. If there is enough demand, it drives up the prices anyways, regardless of quality.