Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Granted it would be hard to find two more disparate Western countries. But as I said, its not like other European countries are rushing to emulate their model in total.
Did you ever stop to consider that what works in Denmark would not necessarily work elsewhere? Just like what works in the US, does not necessarily work elsewhere?
How are other European counties not like Denmark? Every single one has UHC, they all have comprehensive social programs. Legislated worker benefits.
Because it's a real World example of a successful Country that has a multitude of social programs, high taxes, and of course universal health care.
It refutes their fearmongering about all the catastrophic events that will occur if we pass this proposed health care reform and/or expand Government.
I see.
The B****ers here haven't a clue about how such systems work.
Denmark is only one of many countries with a better socio/economic system than the USA.
The Danes joined the EU with Britain and Ireland in 1973 if memory serves me.
Although the Danes have taken an independent line within the EU.
They didn't join the Euro for example.
Curious history, them Danes.
Primarily an agri-based economy, the Danes have built a great economy.
Granted it would be hard to find two more disparate Western countries. But as I said, its not like other European countries are rushing to emulate their model in total.
Did you ever stop to consider that what works in Denmark would not necessarily work elsewhere? Just like what works in the US, does not necessarily work elsewhere?
what???
Most European countries have the same socio/economic models : public health care, reasonably high tax levels, free education, superb infrastructure, excellent social welfare system.
How are other European counties not like Denmark? Every single one has UHC, they all have comprehensive social programs. Legislated worker benefits.
Yes, but Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia have it to the nth degree, more so than the rest of Europe.
UHC systems differ throughout Europe. There is a stark difference, for example, between the NHS in the United Kingdom and the healthcare system of Switzerland (the one we should be examining IMHO). Its not some monolithic one size fits all system.
Btw, have you actually researched and deconstructed the UHC system of Denmark? I have not.
However, I do see what you are getting at. Yes, Europe as a whole is more- can we say "Statist"- than the USA. No doubt. But the USA is a different place. There are pros and cons to both. I have no desire to cram my system down their throats. Can that not be reciprocated?
Yes, but Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia have it to the nth degree, more so than the rest of Europe.
UHC systems differ throughout Europe. There is a stark difference, for example, between the NHS in the United Kingdom and the healthcare system of Switzerland (the one we should be examining IMHO). Its not some monolithic one size fits all system.
Btw, have you actually researched and deconstructed the UHC system of Denmark? I have not.
However, I do see what you are getting at. Yes, Europe as a whole is more- can we say "Statist"- than the USA. No doubt. But the USA is a different place. There are pros and cons to both. I have no desire to cram my system down their throats. Can that not be reciprocated?
I imagine most Europeans couldnt care less how we conduct our internal affairs. They are not cramming anything down our throats. ( I would think most look at what goes on here as they would passing a car wreck on the freeway)
And when we elected Obama that was not cramming anything down anybody's throat and if we pass this health care plan it wll not be cramming anything down anybody's throat.
This is a Democracy. If the minority has a problem with it they can go win an election.
High taxes, and some evil socialism does not seem to be all that bad after all.
I disagree with your assessment.
For an analogy. Lets assume that we both live in a subdivision with minimal association dues. Because of those dues, we are expected to maintain sidewalks infront of our own homes and fences between our homes and public areas ourself.
People intentionally move into this subdivision as they would like to control their own destiny.
Your point of view is, that we should all be FORCED to give our money to the association board. Why? Because my neighbor doesn't want to, nor has the money to fix his fence or sidewalk.
So basically, other peoples properties have become everybody elses responsibilities through forced fees. The justification? "It makes the neighborhood look nicer".
Sorry, I am not buying it. Not in this small example and not in the concepts of social programming on a national level.
This country was founded on the principles of freedom and liberty to sustain at a minimum ourselves. I don't care HOW beautiful that other subdivision is, I refuse to be forced to fund an association who only needs higher funding because a select few decieded to purchase a home they can't maintain. Similarly, I refuse to be taxed at a higher rate to fund a program which benefits only people who failed to plan in the first place.
Though it may be more frustrating, and I may have less "feel good happiness" with the athestics of the neighborhood, my principles say that the values this nation were founded on, and were successful for hundreds of years, should not be abondoned because a select few can't afford to fix their fence.
I imagine most Europeans couldnt care less how we conduct our internal affairs. They are not cramming anything down our throats. ( I would think most look at what goes on here as they would passing a car wreck on the freeway)
And when we elected Obama that was not cramming anything down anybody's throat and if we pass this health care plan it wll not be cramming anything down anybody's throat.
This is a Democracy. If the minority has a problem with it they can go win an election.
You obviously have not read some of Indurain's other posts.
Anyway, I think you are misunderstanding me- text is a lousy way to discuss things.
But you are correct, this is a democracy. And in this particular democracy, a good chunk of people have some concerns about adopting certain healthcare reforms. Obviously its not something that is easily accomplished. Were it so, it would have been done already. There are legitimate questions of cost, efficiency, access, bureacratic inertia, the role of the state, the role of the private sector, rationing, etc. These are not to be taken lightly.
Again, have you deconstructed and analyzed the Danish healthcare system?
Is Denmark the country Oprah showed where couples do not get married and the men are sent off after the baby is born? The women live relatively without men to bother them and raise their children in a woman's only community.
For an analogy. Lets assume that we both live in a subdivision with minimal association dues. Because of those dues, we are expected to maintain sidewalks infront of our own homes and fences between our homes and public areas ourself.
People intentionally move into this subdivision as they would like to control their own destiny.
Your point of view is, that we should all be FORCED to give our money to the association board. Why? Because my neighbor doesn't want to, nor has the money to fix his fence or sidewalk.
So basically, other peoples properties have become everybody elses responsibilities through forced fees. The justification? "It makes the neighborhood look nicer".
Sorry, I am not buying it. Not in this small example and not in the concepts of social programming on a national level.
This country was founded on the principles of freedom and liberty to sustain at a minimum ourselves. I don't care HOW beautiful that other subdivision is, I refuse to be forced to fund an association who only needs higher funding because a select few decieded to purchase a home they can't maintain. Similarly, I refuse to be taxed at a higher rate to fund a program which benefits only people who failed to plan in the first place.
Though it may be more frustrating, and I may have less "feel good happiness" with the athestics of the neighborhood, my principles say that the values this nation were founded on, and were successful for hundreds of years, should not be abondoned because a select few can't afford to fix their fence.
Too funny. You must set up some hypothetical over simplified "neighborhood association" in order to knock it down ..." I'm not buying it"....LOL
There are plenty of real World examples along with objective data that show how Government can improve the lives of citizens.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
