Starfleet Jedi

Ooooh goody, more politics!

So, last night saw some elections. Republicans won gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, and Democrats won two Congressional races in California and heavily conservative upstate New York.

So let me see. Virginia isn't really surprising. The state always tends to elect governors from the party out of power. All through the Bush administration Virginia had Democratic governors. New Jersey? Corzine was up to his ears in corruption charges and was pretty unpopular. California isn't all that surprising either, since the state is largely Democrat territory. New York is rather amazing, since that particular seat in the 23rd district has been Republican-held for 150 years.

Barack Obama went to the plate for Corzine and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds in Virginia, both losses.

Likewise, an amazing coalition of GOP heavy hitters like Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck stepped up for Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, and all of them together couldn't hold back a Democratic victory in a district that has not elected a Democrat since the Civil War.

I don't know who should be taking lessons from this one, frankly. Thoughts? Opinions?

Re: NY-23 ...

1. The Republican dropped out, but still ended up with 6% since her name was on the ballot twice (as Republican and Independence candidates). The Democrat (also on as the "Working Families" candidate) won by 4%, and the liberal Republican endorsed the equally-liberal Democrat.

2. The Democrat ran a more conservative campaign, not representative of the higher-ranking Democrats. This includes a claim that he's against raising taxes on the middle class and small business, less waste in government, and most notably a refusal to support nationalized healthcare.

3. The Democrat reversed himself on nationalized healthcare immediately upon taking office.

So, in a squeaker race, a nobody with no political experience toppled a left-wing Republican and only when the two left-wingers joined forces could they hold the nobody barely at bay. And, of course, the left-wingers only had a chance because of pure and outright lying regarding regarding who they were and what they represented.

Looks pretty normal to me.

As for the Conservative Party and Tea Party folks in general, I don't know if this will take the wind out of their sails or not. They gave good accounting of themselves . . . it was a loss within the margins, as it were, and not a rout. But I'm sure a victory would've given them a lot more fire.

It's an odd-year election. The voting population is going to be very different in a 2009 election than a 2008 election; it's a much smaller group, for one thing. I don't see this as a referendum on anything.

The conservative wing of the Republican party might take this as a warning about what happens when they decide to run a conservative challenger against a too-moderate Republican incumbent - they risk throwing the seat to the Democrats - but that's hardly news, either. I don't think we can draw much meaning for the national parties from this year's elections - turnout is just too low, and there are too few elections of any national import. Wait for 2010, I'd say.

JMS wrote:It's an odd-year election. The voting population is going to be very different in a 2009 election than a 2008 election; it's a much smaller group, for one thing. I don't see this as a referendum on anything.

The conservative wing of the Republican party might take this as a warning about what happens when they decide to run a conservative challenger against a too-moderate Republican incumbent - they risk throwing the seat to the Democrats - but that's hardly news, either. I don't think we can draw much meaning for the national parties from this year's elections - turnout is just too low, and there are too few elections of any national import. Wait for 2010, I'd say.

Yeah, voter turnout in Virginia was low, and Creigh Deeds was kind of a milquetoast candidate. He didn't acquit himself well in debates, and a lot of his campaign slogans were predicated upon Bob McDonnell's college thesis, which in itself is a rather interesting, if decidedly backwards, read (at least in my progressive opinion.) Deeds' incessant reliance on it and his waffling on the issue of taxes sealed his fate. Hell, I remember a town-hall type event from August when Deeds kept repeating that "all options are on the table," when it came to the issue of raising taxes to pay for infrastructure when McDonnell queried him on whether or not he would, in fact, raise taxes. Just say it already! Let the voters have their choice between low taxes and better roads. He was off to a bad start from the get-go. Of course, McDonnell's constant "family man" ads were a source of consternation for me. I don't give a damn how many kids you have. How the hell does that make you a better leader? Should we give Octomom political office? But what's done is done.

In any event, exit polls in both state show approximately 60% of voters did not consider the President an issue in the votecasting, and the remaining 40% that did were evenly split between supporters and detractors. That pretty much sums it up with regard to the referendum issue.

2046 wrote:As for the Conservative Party and Tea Party folks in general, I don't know if this will take the wind out of their sails or not. They gave good accounting of themselves . . . it was a loss within the margins, as it were, and not a rout. But I'm sure a victory would've given them a lot more fire.

"Good accounting?" They ate their own and lost a House seat. Even Michael Steel had the sense to call a loss a loss. But in all honesty, I want wind (read: hot air from rightwing firebreathers) in their sails. This so-called revolution in simply not large enough to win major political power, but they can do the Democrats plenty of favors by prizing ideological purity over actual victories and driving away the Independents which are crucial to those victories. There was a time, not so long ago, when the Republican party was touted to be a "big tent." It is telling that both Bob McDonnel AND Chris Christie rejected Palin's offers to campaign for them.

Cocytus wrote:Good accounting?" They ate their own and lost a House seat.

She should never have been one of our "own" to start with. The loss was preferable than electing a person more liberal than the democrate she was running against. Overall yes I'd say the GOP gave a good accounting considering it was "Political wisdom" that our time was past.

Cocytus wrote:This so-called revolution in simply not large enough to win major political power, but they can do the Democrats plenty of favors by prizing ideological purity over actual victories and driving away the Independents which are crucial to those victories.

We will see in 2010 and than in 2012. I feel lucky, do you?

sonofccn wrote:She should never have been one of our "own" to start with. The loss was preferable than electing a person more liberal than the democrate she was running against. Overall yes I'd say the GOP gave a good accounting considering it was "Political wisdom" that our time was past.

sonofccn wrote:We will see in 2010 and than in 2012. I feel lucky, do you?

I'm not talking about the GOP. There are a lot of smart people in the GOP. I really like Lindsey Graham. I really like Chuck Hagel, even though he's not a senator anymore. I think Virginia will do all right with McDonnell, even if I found his campaign ads irritating and his college thesis regressive 1950s nostalgia.

I'm talking about the 9/12 Project Tea Party crowd, those people who sling Nazi allusions left and right with reckless abandon, who poison and destroy rational discourse, talk about "watering the tree of liberty," and so forth. The same people who cry about big government, but have no problem with a big government intruding on the lives of and restricting the freedoms of gays, furthering a religious agenda in clear and FLAGRANT violation of the 1st amendment. The same people who want the government out of healthcare decisions between doctors and patients, and yet want a government bureaucrat telling women they can't have abortions or receive contraceptives. The same people who apparently DO NOT KNOW that Medicare is a fucking government program and that the Democrats had to fight tooth and nail for it to the tune of the same cries of "Socialism" that we are hearing now. The same people who crow about Muslim terrorism, but would turn a blind eye to the likes of Eric Rudolph, Scott Roeder and Jim David Adkisson, as if only Muslim extremism counts as terrorism. These people scare the HELL out of me, because they are immune to rationality. It does not matter how many facts you marshall, how sound your argument is, they will stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALALALA."

But as frightening as they are, they can't win major power just by themselves. Rush Limbaugh may have 20 million listeners, but if only 20 million vote for you, you can't win an election. If you are to retake Congress and/or the White House, you need the moderates and independents. I don't think Beck, Palin or Limbaugh will deliver them to you. Their power derives from the inculcation of fear, paranoia and xenophobia, and while I'm pretty pessimistic about American politics, I have to believe our electorate is too smart to be so easily manipulated. As for 2010 and 2012, I don't know what to expect. It all comes down to the economy and jobs, and I can't prognosticate the 2012 job market anymore than anyone else. Should history prove me wrong, I'm a big boy. I can handle it.

Cocytus wrote:I'm not talking about the GOP. There are a lot of smart people in the GOP. I really like Lindsey Graham. I really like Chuck Hagel, even though he's not a senator anymore. I think Virginia will do all right with McDonnell, even if I found his campaign ads irritating and his college thesis regressive 1950s nostalgia.

You said you wanted wind in the "fire breathers" sails to drive away independents and benifite the Democrates. The GOP would have to suffer in one way or the other.

Cocytus wrote:I'm talking about the 9/12 Project Tea Party crowd, those people who sling Nazi allusions left and right with reckless abandon, who poison and destroy rational discourse, talk about "watering the tree of liberty," and so forth.

Irony is fun. I mean you paint Tea partiers in very very broad brushstrokes and act if they are evil incarnate. That is no a civil discourse.

Cocytus wrote:The same people who cry about big government, but have no problem with a big government intruding on the lives of and restricting the freedoms of gays, furthering a religious agenda in clear and FLAGRANT violation of the 1st amendment.

Since the Tea Parties are against taxation, mounting deficit etc I'm curious how you can lay such a claim on them. You would need to provide photos and transcripts indicating the majority of Tea Partiers agree with your statment before you can simply state it as fact. Second if I am correctly understanding you are complaining about us being against them entering into Marriage, as opposed to civil unions, you do understand that is hardly limited to us crazy right-wingers right? California, hardly a bastion of conservatism, voted hard to prevent that. So again you can't hate the Tea Partiers because of that since it isn't something limited to them.

Cocytus wrote:The same people who want the government out of healthcare decisions between doctors and patients, and yet want a government bureaucrat telling women they can't have abortions or receive contraceptives.

Seriously very few( meaning the far right) are against contraceptives, now goverment handed out ones are a differnt issue, and to once again bring it up to paint Tea partiers as "extremists" is a low move. As to abortion if you can't stomach the idea of thier being legitiment reasons for finding the whole practice abhorent I see no reason to continue that line of discussion.

Cocytus wrote:The same people who apparently DO NOT KNOW that Medicare is a fucking government program and that the Democrats had to fight tooth and nail for it to the tune of the same cries of "Socialism" that we are hearing now.

I think the majority do know Medicare is a goverment program and a rapidly bankrupting one at that. As to Socialism the argument train derailed as soon as Obama said he liked to spread wealth, yours, around. It has since caught fire and exploded during his first year in office.

Cocytus wrote:The same people who crow about Muslim terrorism, but would turn a blind eye to the likes of Eric Rudolph, Scott Roeder and Jim David Adkisson, as if only Muslim extremism counts as terrorism.

We don't pretend that only Muslim extremism counts as terroism just that it accounts for 99.9% of it. We have a lunatic get loose every once in a while which is regretable but hardly comparable. Case in point Major Hasan has a higher kill count than all three of your examples combined. We don't support or encourage our side to gundown innocent people and we all expressed outrage at Tiller's murder despite what he was doing being a most horrific ocupation. I find it insulting that you would paint such broad strokes over an entire group just because you don't agree with us.

Cocytus wrote:These people scare the HELL out of me, because they are immune to rationality. It does not matter how many facts you marshall, how sound your argument is, they will stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALALALA."

Funny we say the exact same thing. I'm all for pointless name calling and insulting the other side but this isn't a rational debate by any stretch.

Cocytus wrote:But as frightening as they are, they can't win major power just by themselves. Rush Limbaugh may have 20 million listeners, but if only 20 million vote for you, you can't win an election. If you are to retake Congress and/or the White House, you need the moderates and independents.

I'd rather die pure than sell my soul for "moderates" that have not a conservative bone in thier body. Of course I don't think it will come to that. This is a center of right nation and as Reagon showed if you run as a pure conservative candidate you will be elected. Let the moderates come to us if they want a strong United States, strong economy etc. Let them go the the Dems if they want more goverment.

Cocytus wrote:and while I'm pretty pessimistic about American politics, I have to believe our electorate is too smart to be so easily manipulated. As for 2010 and 2012, I don't know what to expect. It all comes down to the economy and jobs, and I can't prognosticate the 2012 job market anymore than anyone else. Should history prove me wrong, I'm a big boy. I can handle it.

As I said we shall see. I feel lucky and, as a fire breather, have wind in my sails. All we can ask for is for battle to comence and fight our hardest.

sonofccn wrote:The GOP would have to suffer in one way or the other.

Not if it got those moderates.

sonofccn wrote:Irony is fun. I mean you paint Tea partiers in very very broad brushstrokes and act if they are evil incarnate. That is no a civil discourse.

I don't recall saying that I was having a civil discourse, merely that they destroy civil discourse, which they do. What would be the height of irony is if I were to sling a few Nazi allusions their way. That wouldn't be civil, but it would certainly be appropriate.
But after eight years of being broadly painted as a traitor, terrorist sympathizer, naive, etc, (not necessarily by you, but certainly by people like them) you can't exactly hold it against me if I return fire. Turnabout is, after all, fair play.

sonofccn wrote:Since the Tea Parties are against taxation, mounting deficit etc I'm curious how you can lay such a claim on them. You would need to provide photos and transcripts indicating the majority of Tea Partiers agree with your statment before you can simply state it as fact.

I don't recall mentioning taxation or deficits. I was using "big government" to refer to unconstitutional invasions of privacy to further a religious agenda. I find that offensive and contrary to our founding principles. If you don't, then we disagree. But as long as we're on the topic of deficit, things like border fences (which I know Beck supports) and continued military presence in the Middle East cost a lot of money.

sonofccn wrote:Second if I am correctly understanding you are complaining about us being against them entering into Marriage, as opposed to civil unions, you do understand that is hardly limited to us crazy right-wingers right? California, hardly a bastion of conservatism, voted hard to prevent that. So again you can't hate the Tea Partiers because of that since it isn't something limited to them.

With so much funding coming from the LDS (3 times more funding came from Utah than anywhere else) I have to wonder how the vote would have gone had the Mormons not interfered, which raises the issue of state sovereignty. If we believe in states' rights, let the states have their vote without any undue influence coming from outside the state. (And no, I am not saying that there are no Mormons in California.)

sonofccn wrote:As to abortion if you can't stomach the idea of thier being legitiment reasons for finding the whole practice abhorent I see no reason to continue that line of discussion.

Oh, I'm not the biggest fan of abortion myself. I've said that in other threads. But again, what I cannot understand is why the Federal Government should stay out of the lives of its citizens, as they say, and yet intrude in this very real way into the lives of citizens.

sonofccn wrote:As to Socialism the argument train derailed as soon as Obama said he liked to spread wealth, yours, around.

No, not mine. I'm not part of the highest income bracket. If you are, well, you probably have enough money and don't need a third Lamborghini ;)

sonofccn wrote:Case in point Major Hasan has a higher kill count than all three of your examples combined. We don't support or encourage our side to gundown innocent people and we all expressed outrage at Tiller's murder despite what he was doing being a most horrific ocupation. I find it insulting that you would paint such broad strokes over an entire group just because you don't agree with us.

Wait a minute. You're suggesting his higher kill count is a result of his being a Muslim? You know what they say about correlation and causation.

And groups like Operation Rescue did indeed condemn Tiller's murder. Whether that was due to honest abhorrence of the act or mere political expediency, I don't know. In any event, I'm more concerned with what the radio and TV hosts who fuel this Tea Party movement had to say. I didn't hear O'Reilly say anything. Maybe I missed it?

sonofccn wrote:Funny we say the exact same thing. I'm all for pointless name calling and insulting the other side but this isn't a rational debate by any stretch.

No, none of it is rational. And the scary thing is, irrationality is highly contagious.

sonofccn wrote:I'd rather die pure than sell my soul for "moderates" that have not a conservative bone in thier body. Of course I don't think it will come to that. This is a center of right nation and as Reagon showed if you run as a pure conservative candidate you will be elected. Let the moderates come to us if they want a strong United States, strong economy etc. Let them go the the Dems if they want more goverment.

Why does it have to be selling your soul? There is such a thing as compromise. It's how good laws get made, by taking the best that each side has to offer. The Republicans are doing us all a disservice by offering more in the way of platitudes and slogans than substantive policy. Their recent healthcare counterproposal was found by the Congressional Budget Office to leave more people uninsured that are uninsured now. In the name of compromise, I'm all for an opt-out public option funded exclusively by state taxes. I'd even go for the trigger option.

Cocytus wrote:I'm talking about the 9/12 Project Tea Party crowd

It's funny how badly you misrepresent them.

1. "Tea Party" or "9/12 Project" does not equal "conservative". There is overlap, yes, but there is also overlap between "Republican" and "liberal".

2. Given #1, your complaining about assorted arguments that you believe to represent conservatives and assigning these concepts to Tea Party folks is extremely wrong-headed.

3. Worst of all is the fact that your attempts to poke holes in the claimed conservative positions are so incredibly bad as to be straw men.

those people who sling Nazi allusions left and right with reckless abandon,

. . . because no liberal or "moderate" would ever use Nazi allusions.

who poison and destroy rational discourse,

. . . by having book reading and discussion clubs for silly right-wing extremist works like Thomas Paine's Common Sense, or The Federalist Papers?

Maybe you're thinking of folks who declare that anyone who disagrees with a black man's ideas is clearly racist.

Just to pick one of your gripes, let's ponder your same-sex marriage stuff.

a. Homosexuality is not illegal (though it's true a lot of old sodomy laws did once exist, but even where they do now they are not enforced), ergo no one is intruding on their lives.
b. A gay person can legally marry any member of the opposite sex that they choose, just like anyone else. Thus they are not being discriminated against.
c. Same-sex marriage has never been legal, and thus to describe it as a freedom being infringed upon is begging the question.

Personally, I'm open to the idea of same-sex marriage, because although I think state involvement in marriage should be as limited as possible, I do think that the state's regulations can play a role in supporting or destroying the family unit (witness Welfare). And, I imagine that there are some same-sex couples who are just as capable (if not more capable) of raising well-adjusted offspring (via adoption or future-tech) than straight couples, which is what the family unit's usually been good for.

However, I think that picking a fight over the term "marriage" itself is foolhardy at this time, and is dooming the movement to failure. "Civil Union" would go down easier among those who disagree with the idea for religious reasons. I also think that the movement's leftist manuevers (for instance, trying to overturn the clear and obvious will of the voters via activist judges even after the vote's been decided) is just pissing off the wrong people. Even hardcore conservatives might've given the nod, despite all the BS that homosexuals globally throw without cause at those of a conservative political opinion. (Ignorant bigotry is not isolated to one political persuasion.) However, such leftist tactics are most likely to piss off the very people you're falsely accusing of all being against you anyway.

Self-fulfilling prophecies . . .

Anyway, skipping a bit because you do a lot of misrepresenting of conservatism, and it is not my job to educate you:

These people scare the HELL out of me, because they are immune to rationality. It does not matter how many facts you marshall, how sound your argument is, they will stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALALALA."

Funny . . . I was thinking the same about left-wingers.

Most of your response was predictable, but this is just insane:

2046 wrote:a. Homosexuality is not illegal (though it's true a lot of old sodomy laws did once exist, but even where they do now they are not enforced), ergo no one is intruding on their lives.
b. A gay person can legally marry any member of the opposite sex that they choose, just like anyone else. Thus they are not being discriminated against.
c. Same-sex marriage has never been legal, and thus to describe it as a freedom being infringed upon is begging the question.

a. The Supreme Court decision invalidating anti-sodomy statutes is Lawrence vs. Texas, from, drumroll, 2003. Such laws existed as recently as 2003.

b. Um, Earth to 2046. They don't want to marry people of the opposite sex, now do they? They want to marry the same sex. They can't do that, and thus they are being discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. Did you even read that before you posted it?

c. Are you familiar with the concept of unenumerated rights? There has never been a law legalizing it on the books, and thus it is not infringing on freedom? The point of rights is that they are God-given and inalienable, regardless of whether we write them down or not. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the 9th Amendment. I don't know if the 9th could be used for gay rights specifically, but suggesting that freedoms must be written down in order to count is contrary to our Constitution.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Founding Fathers understood that what they wrote down could not be an exhaustive list of all possible rights.

Cocytus wrote:Not if it got those moderates.

Which you do not believe will happen while "Fire Breathers" are leading the party. You stated you want them to keep the wind in thier sails, which for the moment seems likely, to drive said moderates away and help the Dems. Ergo the GOP, assuming your belief is correct, can not succeed.

Cocytus wrote:I don't recall saying that I was having a civil discourse, merely that they destroy civil discourse,

Which is the Irony.

Cocytus wrote:But after eight years of being broadly painted as a traitor, terrorist sympathizer, naive, etc, (not necessarily by you, but certainly by people like them) you can't exactly hold it against me if I return fire. Turnabout is, after all, fair play.

No worse than what we have been called for eight years. We're called Nazi's, domestic terrorists, etc.

Cocytus wrote:I don't recall mentioning taxation or deficits.

You are speaking of the Tea Parties. The primary force behind those is Taxation and the skyrocketing deficit. Your laundry list of conservative complaints , while held by individuals, can not be directed at the overall entity without evidence that the majority believe it and are there to promote it. As been said they are a diverse lot.

Cocytus wrote:But as long as we're on the topic of deficit, things like border fences (which I know Beck supports) and continued military presence in the Middle East cost a lot of money.

A pittance compared to the stimulus, universal health care etc. We, speaking broadly of the right, also see things like the border fence and military presence as required to maintain our sovereignty.

Cocytus wrote:With so much funding coming from the LDS (3 times more funding came from Utah than anywhere else) I have to wonder how the vote would have gone had the Mormons not interfered, which raises the issue of state sovereignty. If we believe in states' rights, let the states have their vote without any undue influence coming from outside the state.

The Mormons have every right to express their belief in all fifty states as anyone else. All I can say is if the majority of people wanted it it would pass and to my knowledge every time the issue comes up for a vote it fails ergo be you right or leftwing your against it.

Cocytus wrote:Oh, I'm not the biggest fan of abortion myself. I've said that in other threads. But again, what I cannot understand is why the Federal Government should stay out of the lives of its citizens, as they say, and yet intrude in this very real way into the lives of citizens.

I would argue a divergence of the role of government. We see the government as a corrupt, broken down necessary evil which purpose is to provide a stable environment where one can succeed or fail on their own merits. It is not to take care of us or be our conscious or anything else. We view the act of abortion as murder and we want it stopped however we only demand that each state be allowed to vote their preference so even in our zealous fanatical drive we still grant more "choice" than your side granted us in the debate.

Cocytus wrote:No, not mine. I'm not part of the highest income bracket. If you are, well, you probably have enough money and don't need a third Lamborghini ;)

Touche but as a socialist he will come for your money regardless of your bracket unless your lucky enough to be among the special few he thinks deserves the riches of others.

Cocytus wrote:Wait a minute. You're suggesting his higher kill count is a result of his being a Muslim? You know what they say about correlation and causation.

No I'm saying Hasan and what he represents, radical Islam, is a bigger threat than a fanatical right-winger because Hasan's group is more likely to kill you. For your complaint to be genuine their kills would have to be comparable or the crazy right-wingers even worse. They are not.

Cocytus wrote:Why does it have to be selling your soul? There is such a thing as compromise. It's how good laws get made, by taking the best that each side has to offer.

Because certain things are right and certain things are wrong. You can't compromise without compromising your core beliefs which you should not do. If you believe Government spending hurts the economy instead of helps it why should you compromise? How do you compromise? If you believe Universal Health care leads to long lines, shoddy treatment and rationing why should you compromise? How? The two parties, at their core, believe two radically different things. Only one can be right.

Cocytus wrote:The Republicans are doing us all a disservice by offering more in the way of platitudes and slogans than substantive policy. Their recent healthcare counterproposal was found by the Congressional Budget Office to leave more people uninsured that are uninsured now.

Isn't that good? Are overarching goal should be to get everybody off of government programs. It isn't like the bulk of the current uninsured couldn't be insured, or are here illegally which does make it hard to qualify for a policy, if they chose so cutting off a few more free loaders off from their junkie is a positive step.

Cocytus wrote:In the name of compromise, I'm all for an opt-out public option funded exclusively by state taxes. I'd even go for the trigger option.

That's nice. I don't want the program to exist, at all. It goes against everything this nation was founded on, will lower the standard of medical care down to European levels and can and will be used to buy votes by promising ever more goodies.

sonofccn wrote:It goes against everything this nation was founded on, will lower the standard of medical care down to European levels and can and will be used to buy votes by promising ever more goodies.

Infant mortality wrote: United States 6.26 2009 est.
European Union 5.72 2009 est.
Canada 5.04 2009 est.

Life expectancy wrote:United States 78.11 2009 est.
European Union 78.67 2009 est.
Canada 81.23 2009 est.

Whoops wouldn't want to lower your standards down to European levels.

Kane Starkiller wrote:

sonofccn wrote:It goes against everything this nation was founded on, will lower the standard of medical care down to European levels and can and will be used to buy votes by promising ever more goodies.

Infant mortality wrote: United States 6.26 2009 est.
European Union 5.72 2009 est.
Canada 5.04 2009 est.

Life expectancy wrote:United States 78.11 2009 est.
European Union 78.67 2009 est.
Canada 81.23 2009 est.

You are aware that such lovely places as the EU have several criteria to meet to count as a infant mortality, much stricter than the US. That might skew your results. We could compare other points, say after birth were they can get to actually experience your "lovely" healthcare and see who holds up. As to life expectancy I'm not sure point five of a year is worth subpar equipment, long lines, poorly trained doctors. Even Canada's three years is a steep price to pay,seriously more MRI's in one major US city than the entire country that's embarrassing.

Kane Starkiller wrote:Whoops wouldn't want to lower your standards down to European levels.

No we would not. We should be trying to build up the world not tearing ourselves down.

sonofccn wrote:You are aware that such lovely places as the EU have several criteria to meet to count as a infant mortality, much stricter than the US. That might skew your results.

Not all EU countries have the same criteria and EU countries include countries like Bulgaria or Romania which are hardly first world countries and will skew the results downwards.

Germany 3.99/1000 79.26y
United Kingdom 4.85/1000 79.01y
France 3.33/1000 80.98y

By all means show how these numbers are skewed. (all taken from CIA factbook)

sonofccn wrote:We could compare other points, say after birth were they can get to actually experience your "lovely" healthcare and see who holds up.

Compare them then. Right wingers in US have been predicting doom and gloom should US switch to the dreaded SOCIALIST system of EU, at least you could put up some objective data.

sonofccn wrote:As to life expectancy I'm not sure point five of a year is worth subpar equipment, long lines, poorly trained doctors. Even Canada's three years is a steep price to pay,seriously more MRI's in one major US city than the entire country that's embarrassing.

LOL. Long lines are not worth additional 2-3 less dead newborns/1000 people and 1-2 extra years of life.
And, interestingly, all that subpar equipment still results in superior objective data.
Now, I don't doubt that US has unparalleled medical technology and this is exactly what makes your subpar results so sad: you could do better if you had a better system allowing a greater portion of your population access to all that fancy stuff.

Not all EU countries have the same criteria and EU countries include countries like Bulgaria or Romania which are hardly first world countries and will skew the results downwards.

Germany 3.99/1000 79.26y
United Kingdom 4.85/1000 79.01y
France 3.33/1000 80.98y

By all means show how these numbers are skewed. (all taken from CIA factbook)

Response pending please allow 24-48 hours thank you.

Compare them then. Right wingers in US have been predicting doom and gloom should US switch to the dreaded SOCIALIST system of EU, at least you could put up some objective data.

Funny you were so fast to pull out infant mortality but now you don't have anything? All right for my go I choose cancer rates. US 66.3% for male 62.9% for female survive five years after diagnoses vs Europe 47.3% for males and 55.8% for women.

LOL. Long lines are not worth additional 2-3 less dead newborns/1000 people and 1-2 extra years of life.

That comment was specifically stated towards the EU and point five of a year. That is assuming your health care is to account for that not other factors.

And, interestingly, all that subpar equipment still results in superior objective data

Superior objective data? Are you trying to claim superior medical quality with subpar equipment? I eagerly await which illness or injury you can do better.

Now, I don't doubt that US has unparalleled medical technology and this is exactly what makes your subpar results so sad:

You realize that even US vs Canada the gap isn't that wide right? That if the socialist system was so uber you should be head and shoulders above us and not a mere three years. So please stop pretending the US is some sort of wasteland.

you could do better if you had a better system allowing a greater portion of your population access to all that fancy stuff.

Actually as has been proven in canada, Europe, and everywhere else this is the only system that allows us to allow the greatest portion of our population the fancy stuff. Once again we have more magnetic resonance scanners in a single city than all of Canada, I'm curious how Europe compares does it take two cities or a whole state, which provides as short a wait and low cost per use of the machine as possible. Your system produces fewer machines which raises the wait time and cost ( fewer machines coupled with 24 hours in a day equals more precious). I eagerly await evidence that a common Canadian has better access to MRI's, x-rays, etc than an American of equivalent social-economical rank. Your move.