Obamacare Passes!!!

[SirJosephPorter]

China #5 and India #13 respectively.

But it doesn't fit his model of what a developed country is so how can it be?

Thanks Juan!

I have already answered this. They have large GDP because of the population, it means nothing. To take an extreme example. Let us say country A has a population of 10,000, GDP of 1 billion. Country B has population of 1 billion, GDP of 1 billion +1.

According to your absurd logic, country B is richer than country A, since it has higher GDP. The fact that most people are starving in country B (with income of one dollar per person per year) probably is irrelevant to you.

It is surprising indeed how some people have difficulty grasping simple concepts.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

No it isn't. When a country like China can bankroll and keep America afloat, has a manned space program, has a booming economy, can easily sustain a million man army... they're developed regardless of what some Chinese street merchant makes.

All that means is that some people are well off, while many are dirt poor, some of them may even be starving. That may be your definition of a developed country, it isn't mine. I prefer to go by solid numbers, by solid evidence, rather than by fuzzy, cloudy arguments.

 

[TenPenny]

The only indication of whether a country is developed or not is how much wealth it has, how much it is producing. Anything else is irrelevant. One judges if a man is rich or not by how much money he has. Why should that be different for a country?

But then again, maybe not

If one considers GDP alone, that will mean that China is richer than Britain, Canada, France etc., which is plainly nonsense

In other words, the only measure of being developed is how much wealth the country has, except when it's not, in which case it's GDP. Or not, in which case it's per capita income. Or not.

 

[JLM]

I doubt if money has anything to do with a country being "developed" or at least "money" as recognized by other countries. Did the Incas have "money"? They undoubted had stuff they could trade, but not necessarily "money" as produced by the mint.

 

[EagleSmack]

I have already answered this. They have large GDP because of the population, it means nothing. To take an extreme example. Let us say country A has a population of 10,000, GDP of 1 billion. Country B has population of 1 billion, GDP of 1 billion +1.

According to your absurd logic, country B is richer than country A, since it has higher GDP. The fact that most people are starving in country B (with income of one dollar per person per year) probably is irrelevant to you.

It is surprising indeed how some people have difficulty grasping simple concepts.

Once again you judge a country but what the average Joe in the street is making not what the government brings in and what their economic and financial capabilities are.

Now who's being absurd? :lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

But then again, maybe not


In other words, the only measure of being developed is how much wealth the country has, except when it's not, in which case it's GDP. Or not, in which case it's per capita income. Or not.

The only measure is how much a country has per person, per citizen. But evidently not according to you. As i gave the example in my previous post, you will consider country B, where most people are starving, to be richer than country A, with per capita income of 100,000, just because total GDP of country B happens to be greater than that of country A.

Now, I am an old man. But is this what they teach in school these days? That a family earning 80, 000 $ per year, husband, wife and 10 kids is richer, financially better off that a family earning 79,000 $ per year, husband and wife only? No wonder some think that our education system is going to the dogs, when people cannot understand such a simple concept.

 

[EagleSmack]

All that means is that some people are well off, while many are dirt poor, some of them may even be starving. That may be your definition of a developed country, it isn't mine. I prefer to go by solid numbers, by solid evidence, rather than by fuzzy, cloudy arguments.

Solid except in the GDP.

Too easy and very funny.

 

[JLM]

Getting back to the subject, I already see one major flaw in Obama's plan. Apparently it will be against the law for a person not to have a policy for which he can be fined. So Joe the junkie who hasn't got a pot to p*ss in doesn't have a policy. So how will they fine him? I think it's silly to enact legislation that can't be enforced. Oooooooooh maybe I screwed up- they could throw him in jail for 50 years.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Once again you judge a country but what the average Joe in the street is making not what the government brings in and what their economic and financial capabilities are.

Now who's being absurd? :lol:

Still you. And you haven't answered my question. In the example I gave, country B (with per capita income of 1 dollar) is richer than country A (with per capita income of 100,000 $), according to your logic. Yes or no?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Solid except in the GDP.

Too easy and very funny.

Quite. So according to you, a family earning 80,000 $, husband, wife and 10 kids is financially better off than a family earning 79,000 $, husband and wife only. No wonder people have difficulty with money management.

 

[CDNBear]

Now, I am an old man. But is this what they teach in school these days? That a family earning 80, 000 $ per year, husband, wife and 10 kids is richer, financially better off that a family earning 79,000 $ per year, husband and wife only? No wonder some think that our education system is going to the dogs, when people cannot understand such a simple concept.

No, what it teaches us is...

If a family of 12 is living off whatever/yr. Where mom and dad are fat, drive Ferrari's and wear brand name clothes and the kids are on the verge of starving to death. There's a problem.

Which of course is the simplest thing to grasp. If of course you actually subscribe to critical thought, lol.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I doubt if money has anything to do with a country being "developed" or at least "money" as recognized by other countries. Did the Incas have "money"? They undoubted had stuff they could trade, but not necessarily "money" as produced by the mint.

Money, income, GDP (per capita) has everything to do with it. That is what decides if a country is developed country or a developing country. Any country where people are starving, living in slums, tens of millions of them, with no running water, no plumbing, no electricity, rampant disease cannot by any stretch of imagination be regarded as a developed country.

World Vision and other charities are very busy in India, feeding the poor. I know it first hand, we sponsor two little girls in India through World Vision. The money we pay goes for their food and their education.

If that is your idea of a developed country, I suggest you move there.

 

[JLM]

There is altogether to much inane nonsense being sprouted about who is better off according to how much money they earn. If I have a couple cows, a few hogs, a vegetable garden, some fruit trees a gun and a fishing pole and some chickens I may well be better off than someone with a huge salary. Money actually has very little to do with it.

 

[EagleSmack]

Still you. And you haven't answered my question. In the example I gave, country B (with per capita income of 1 dollar) is richer than country A (with per capita income of 100,000 $), according to your logic. Yes or no?

A disparity in the wealth of families has no bearing on the wealth, power and development of a nation. China is a great economic power regardless of what they pay the lady making juice machines.

 

[CDNBear]

Money, income, GDP (per capita) has everything to do with it. That is what decides if a country is developed country or a developing country. Any country where people are starving, living in slums, tens of millions of them, with no running water, no plumbing, no electricity, rampant disease cannot by any stretch of imagination be regarded as a developed country.

What a load of sh!t!!!

These countries are in the shape they're in, because the govt doesn't put the money into infrastructure. Instead it allocates it for military and arms prolification.

The money is there, the fact that it doesn't reach the people, is irrelevant. Not China, not India, not Russia are developing nations. They are led by fools and described as "developing" by even bigger fools.

World Vision and other charities are very busy in India, feeding the poor. I know it first hand, we sponsor two little girls in India through World Vision. The money we pay goes for their food and their education.

And if India, China and Russia, had gov'ts that didn't use their wealth to perpetuate arms and space races, their collective populace wouldn't live in squalor in need of your aid.

If that is your idea of a developed country, I suggest you move there.

And live in a repressive state where the gov't neglects the people, while it spends billions of aid dollars on military and arms prolification? I think not.

 

[TenPenny]

The only measure is how much a country has per person, per citizen. But evidently not according to you. .

Actually, it was YOU who said this:

The only indication of whether a country is developed or not is how much wealth it has, how much it is producing. Anything else is irrelevant. One judges if a man is rich or not by how much money he has. Why should that be different for a country?

 

[EagleSmack]

Getting back to the subject, I already see one major flaw in Obama's plan. Apparently it will be against the law for a person not to have a policy for which he can be fined. So Joe the junkie who hasn't got a pot to p*ss in doesn't have a policy. So how will they fine him? I think it's silly to enact legislation that can't be enforced. Oooooooooh maybe I screwed up- they could throw him in jail for 50 years.

That is right. Now joe the Junkie may not have to worry about anything because he is most likely on public assistance to begin with.

However, the guy that is self employed or moves from job to job has something to worry about. The guy that simply refuses to have Health Care because he does not want to pay for it has something to worry about.

The government may be inept at some things but when it comes to collecting money they have the IRS do it. The IRS is not inept at collecting money and they will get it. Just like they get income taxes and come after you when you don't file and owe taxes. They garner your wages, put leins on houses, destroy your credit, go after your accounts and when all else fails they put you in jail.

 

[GreenFish66]

I'd just like to say ...Obama is the best President the U.S has had in years and from what I can tell ..Will have for years to come ...

I'm not afraid to say..I am an Obamamaniac.. ,

 

[JLM]

That is right. Now joe the Junkie may not have to worry about anything because he is most likely on public assistance to begin with.

However, the guy that is self employed or moves from job to job has something to worry about. The guy that simply refuses to have Health Care because he does not want to pay for it has something to worry about.

The government may be inept at some things but when it comes to collecting money they have the IRS do it. The IRS is not inept at collecting money and they will get it. Just like they get income taxes and come after you when you don't file and owe taxes. They garner your wages, put leins on houses, destroy your credit, go after your accounts and when all else fails they put you in jail.

Which raises another question (at least in Canada it would) under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I'm not sure that a person can be compelled to have insurance for anything, with the exception of where the endangerment of others is involved. But I'm not an expert on the Charter, but we have a resident expert who claims to be.

 

[GreenFish66]

What if...It will ...What a load of balarky ...Give it some time to work ...It will work ..No , what if about it..

More health care for more people is a win win ...for both the people and insurance companies..

Although having said that...100% Universal/National health care is still a far better system..:canada: