What If... You Were The U.S. President?

Excuse me for being wrong, we are not 17th rather we are 37th! AMAZING considering that ALL the leaders in health are socialized systems.

The World Health Organization has carried out the first ever analysis of the world's health systems. Using five performance indicators to measure health systems in 191 member states, it finds that France provides the best overall health care followed among major countries by Italy, Spain, Oman, Austria and Japan.

The findings are published today, 21 June, in The World Health Report 2000 – Health systems: Improving performance*.

*Copies of the Report can be ordered from [email protected].

The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy.
Click to expand...

Source
 
Its based upon five arbitrtary pieces of the greater healthcare picture. From what I'm reading in that article, the US is #1 is responsiveness and quality of healthcare. Whats dragging us down by their stats is cost ratio versus income and our insistence on self destruction from obesity even in the face of high medical capabilities. To achieve #1 on this list by their categorization, as prez, you would have to not change the healthcare... but dismantle the legal lawsuit hell that makes the costs sky high as well as mandate diet and exercise at the point of a gun.
 
markjs said:
Excuse me for being wrong, we are not 17th rather we are 37th! AMAZING considering that ALL the leaders in health are socialized systems.



Source
Click to expand...

That source is incredibly flawed, the proof is that Cuba ranks 39th. Cuba can be a socialist country and Castro might be an asshole, but they have one of the best health systems (if not the best) in the world.
 
I just had to actually read this thread. !!! And edit stuff!
Now quitcher bickering and DON'T make me do it again!!!
 
unclehobart said:
Its based upon five arbitrtary pieces of the greater healthcare picture. From what I'm reading in that article, the US is #1 is responsiveness and quality of healthcare. Whats dragging us down by their stats is cost ratio versus income and our insistence on self destruction from obesity even in the face of high medical capabilities. To achieve #1 on this list by their categorization, as prez, you would have to not change the healthcare... but dismantle the legal lawsuit hell that makes the costs sky high as well as mandate diet and exercise at the point of a gun.
Click to expand...

Bypassing congress??? Mandating health at gun point?


Sounds suspiciously like a Despot, ..... or, dare I say it??? A King?

'Fess up, Unc. You're a closet Monarchist.
 
Closet?... hell ... I've always envied the efficiency of a monarchy. God knows we can't make it as a Republic. It's just a dog and pony show to coax monies out of the general largess. Its a tragedy waiting to die via red tape.
 
I really do wonder why nobody has a comment on:

Possibly more important than anything else is we would absolutely dedicate ourselves to alternative energy sources and clean burning fuels. We would make every effort to reduce our need for petroleum before the worlds economy collapses because of oil.
Click to expand...

Because any thinking person would realize that under the current administration's energy plan we are eventually headed for economic disater. I really think this is probably the number one economic issue that faces us in the upcoming futre and it seems to me that nobdody is adressing it!
 
markjs said:
I really do wonder why nobody has a comment on:



Because any thinking person would realize that under the current administration's energy plan we are eventually headed for economic disater. I really think this is probably the number one economic issue that faces us in the upcoming futre and it seems to me that nobdody is adressing it!
Click to expand...
post #6, item 3.
 
Winky said:
But why?

There is SO another 50 to 100 years of oil left

and

So called "alternative energy" costs Ka-Bah-Zillions more
than the dirt cheap crude that is spewing out of the ground
at a mind boggling 70+ million barrels PER DAY!

Nope the (crack) pipe dream of Kum-Bye-Ya
alternative power is gonna have to be delayed:


the world has used up about 23 percent of its total available petroleum resource
Click to expand...
Because the wrong people own most of it. If we would do a little colonial subjugation cira 1870 and take what we need... then things would be dandy. World harmony be damned.. I want my MTV!
 
and SUV!

Yeah own is a relative term.
As long as they are ready to turn it over in exchange
for slips of paper with deceased notables printed on them,
they can own it all they want.

Although, since the U.S. currently sucks up fully 25%
of the worlds daily oil production, a DRASTIC reduction
in our consumption would have an effect worldwide.

I may be in my 80's or I may be long since returned to dust
but a Hydrogen economy powered by nuclear fusion would so Rock!
 
Winky said:
Although, since the U.S. currently sucks up fully 25%
of the worlds daily oil production, a DRASTIC reduction
in our consumption would have an effect worldwide.
Click to expand...
:rofl:
Winky said:
I may be in my 80's or I may be long since returned to dust
but a Hydrogen economy powered by nuclear fusion would so Rock!
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, like you say, that'll remain a pie in the sky dream until after all the oil is gone. :shrug:
 
'fraid so unless some freak breakthrough occurs.


One is left to ponder what the U.S. would look like
if we had to scale back our oil consumption in an drastic
and disruptive way.

Most of the oil is burned up in cars (yeah and trucks).

If we could somehow find a way to get around
without burning up dinosaurs
we'd be sound as a Pound!
 
Never happen. Would require personal sacrifice. Realignment of what matters to us as a society. No longer could the most important thing in our lives be keeping up appearances and suburban comfort zones. We'd actually have to return to living off our wits rather than off our office chairs. Instead of shuffling numbers from this account to that one without ever touching currency, we'd have to produce what we consume...and consume only what we produce. You know...like our grandparents did.

Half the country or more would starve to death in the first month.

No, instead we'll continue to spend more than we earn, use more than we produce, and once every few months we'll wring our hands and moan about the mess our poor children will have to clean up and then we'll hop in the SUV and drive three blocks to the nearest fast food joint, then hit the video store or maybe go pay seven bucks for a cup of coffee, then retreat back to our cubbies and pretend it isn't happening.

God bless America.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Never happen. Would require personal sacrifice. Realignment of what matters to us as a society. No longer could the most important thing in our lives be keeping up appearances and suburban comfort zones. We'd actually have to return to living off our wits rather than off our office chairs. Instead of shuffling numbers from this account to that one without ever touching currency, we'd have to produce what we consume...and consume only what we produce. You know...like our grandparents did.

Half the country or more would starve to death in the first month.

No, instead we'll continue to spend more than we earn, use more than we produce, and once every few months we'll wring our hands and moan about the mess our poor children will have to clean up and then we'll hop in the SUV and drive three blocks to the nearest fast food joint, then hit the video store or maybe go pay seven bucks for a cup of coffee, then retreat back to our cubbies and pretend it isn't happening.

God bless America.
Click to expand...
I don't think that it'd have to be that drastic...just changing the frame of mind that cars/trucks etc are a form of transportation and not a status symbol. That's a big-ass block, but if you can swing that...you've got it made. Just like in the 80's when people started buying japanese 'small cars' because of the gas crunch.

You set a maximum top speed on all cars sold... lets say, umh... 75mph. Plenty of speed to pass when you have to and do fairly well on the highway. Manufacturers reduce cars to 2l V4 or smaller. Increase emission standards.

Sure...that Porche can't do 0-60 in under 5 seconds anymore, but that's part of the whole 'status symbol' thing more than real need. Ditto for SUVs that never see mud except after rain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top