[QUOTE=Strider*;38544331]This depends ultimately on values, why do you keep evading this?[/QUOTE]
And we share a lot of values such as "I would prefer not to die horribly in a fire"
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38538538]
My ideal system is one based on utilitarianism, with scientific methodology being used extensively to make that possible.
Whenever an ideology would be found to contradict scientific knowledge (as Libertarianism does), then out the window into the dustbin of history it goes.
[/QUOTE]
I don't want to steer away from libertarianism but what you are suggesting sounds like a Resource Based Economy and the ideas of the Venus Project. They advocate for a society where things are thoroughly tested by the scientific method and all "political choices" are rooted in experimental data proving one method more beneficial than another.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38544265][url=http://lesswrong.com/lw/bq0/be_happier/]no[/url][/QUOTE]
Even with the advances we have made in quantifying human emotion, it still cannot be successfully done with any reliability and any behavioral psychologist can tell you that.
The whole way we measure happiness is, in fact, subjective. You have people tell you how "happy" they feel in certain situations, which depends entirely on their personal view of happiness. People have differing moralities; differing goals; differing personalities. To say you can simply implement happiness through certain policies is inaccurate because of this.
That's why the only moral solution, in my mind, is to get rid of coercive authority in society in order to allow human beings to pursue their own morality and their own goals. To try and authoritatively say that you know how to make someone happy is absolutely arrogant and despicable.
[QUOTE=Zally13;38523335]Libertarian philosophy bases itself entirely in a world where there's perfect conditions. In this theory world, libertarian philosophy would prosper. This world assumes that the free market has no faults, what's best for a company is always best for both the consumer and its workers, and that the government is always ineffective, at least more so than the free market.
[editline]20th November 2012[/editline]
In reality, this is not the case.[/QUOTE]
Libertarianism doesn't assume that we live in a world with "perfect conditions", whatever that's supposed to mean, or that the "free market has no faults". I've never heard a single libertarian argue anything remotely of the sort. That is a complete strawman.
[QUOTE=Noble;38548075]Libertarianism doesn't assume that we live in a world with "perfect conditions", whatever that's supposed to mean, or that the "free market has no faults". I've never heard a single libertarian argue anything remotely of the sort. That is a complete strawman.[/QUOTE]
I agree, most libertarians I talk to admit that even capitalism and the free market has problems. Of course that is anecdotal no where really says that that is what libertarians believe.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38544626]
Countries with public services (like healthcare, firefighters and police) tend to do better than those with privatized systems.[/QUOTE]
[Citation needed/requested]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38544626]Not really. If it can be shown that say for example the use of state firefighting forces is shown to be more superior to privatised firefighters, then implementing it will clearly be more beneficial.
Countries with public services (like healthcare, firefighters and police) tend to do better than those with privatized systems.[/QUOTE]
But that isn't what this debate is about. Libertarianism intends to change the status quo, not just to run current institutions more effectively.
It does depend on values because it's not a universal value to favor public services at the cost of some liberty.
Also as previously stated in the thread a lot of these issues are boiled down to what your personal values are and what your values as a society are. Different ways of accomplishing or approaching a certain goal/issue. Are any of them inherently wrong?
No not really, you might disagree personally and in your view you'd rather it be done x y z, while I want a b c.
[QUOTE=Noble;38548075]Libertarianism doesn't assume that we live in a world with "perfect conditions", whatever that's supposed to mean, or that the "free market has no faults". I've never heard a single libertarian argue anything remotely of the sort. That is a complete strawman.[/QUOTE]
It's hardly a strawman when a large amount of Libertarians truly do believe that the free market has no faults.
There are, of course, separate beliefs regarding libertarianism, and how extreme it should go. I can't strawman something when a specific point hasn't been brought up. Tell me your style of libertarianism and I will go ahead and critique it.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;38548124][Citation needed/requested][/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy[/url]
Pretty much all of the ones ranked above America have universal healthcare.
And: [img]http://www.irishleftreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/a1_spiritleveltable1_2.jpg[/img]
[editline]22nd November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Aman VII;38548155]Are any of them inherently wrong?
No not really, you might disagree personally and in your view you'd rather it be done x y z, while I want a b c.[/QUOTE]
Except some methods are actually more effective than others.
Cuba has a higher life expectancy at birth, despite being significantly poorer than the United States and is under a Communist regime, and this can be quite strongly attributed to their healthcare system.
[editline]22nd November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Strider*;38548132]But that isn't what this debate is about. Libertarianism intends to change the status quo, not just to run current institutions more effectively.
It does depend on values because it's not a universal value to favor public services at the cost of some liberty.[/QUOTE]
Except getting rid of those institutions is pretty much impossible.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;38548124][Citation needed/requested][/QUOTE]
Depends on your definition of "do better".
For healthcare, refer to this graph:
[IMG]http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/health/spend/cost_longlife75.gif[/IMG]
First of all, Universal Healthcare is moral. We are all going to need it eventually. The problem is that the non-wealthy should not have to pay ridiculous costs and possibly go into bankruptcy for it, as [URL="http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/petrie-flom/workshop/pdf/warren.pdf"]62.1% of people did in 2007.[/URL] And that's a conservative estimate. Not only that, but it would likely reduce the cost of healthcare by [URL="http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2012/0312friedman.pdf"]billions.[/URL] I do not wish to live in a society where the wealthy get the best healthcare, where the poor can go bankrupt from it, and where insurance and pharmaceutical companies overcharge their customers.
Alongside that, Firefighters? Of course that's beneficial. Back in the day, people would purchase fire insurance. What would then happen is whatever fire fighting company put out the fire first would get the money. What happened would be violent fighting over this at this time. Not only that, but firefighters wouldn't put out people who didn't have fire insurance. Again, if we wish to be hurting the poor more we can do that. Of course, the majority are volunteer, and that works wonders.
Then police. I honestly don't think this needs any explaining, because anybody who needs to be explained why we should have a consistent, publicly funded police system needs to simply look where there weren't any. We see situations where protection rackets come about. [URL="http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/63/067.html"]Look at post-Soviet Russia where law enforcement was ridiculously underfunded.[/URL]
I think the comparison is clear with this evidence, but if you really need more direct comparisons, go ahead and ask.
[QUOTE=Zally13;38548829]
Alongside that, Firefighters? Of course that's beneficial. Back in the day, people would purchase fire insurance. What would then happen is whatever fire fighting company put out the fire first would get the money. What happened would be violent fighting over this at this time. Not only that, but firefighters wouldn't put out people who didn't have fire insurance. Again, if we wish to be hurting the poor more we can do that. Of course, the majority are volunteer, and that works wonders.
Then police. I honestly don't think this needs any explaining, because anybody who needs to be explained why we should have a consistent, publicly funded police system needs to simply look where there weren't any. We see situations where protection rackets come about. [URL="http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/63/067.html"]Look at post-Soviet Russia where law enforcement was ridiculously underfunded.[/URL]
[/QUOTE]
I don't think I've seen single libertarian saying that police and firefighters should be private.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;38549805]I don't think I've seen single libertarian saying that police and firefighters should be private.[/QUOTE]
You haven't seen many libertarians then.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38544265][url=http://lesswrong.com/lw/bq0/be_happier/]no[/url][/QUOTE]
this isn't how you debate. you always link to other people's articles and list huge bibliographies and it just shows that you're too lazy to condense points and argue constructively.
[QUOTE=Zally13;38548646]It's hardly a strawman when a large amount of Libertarians truly do believe that the free market has no faults.[/quote]
Who has ever argued that the free market has no faults?
That argument is a poor one anyway (the argument that the free market can't work because it has faults), because the same argument must apply to government. Why can the same irrational people, who can't be trusted to run a free market, be trusted to run a government with a monopoly on force and control over other people's lives?
[quote]There are, of course, separate beliefs regarding libertarianism, and how extreme it should go. I can't strawman something when a specific point hasn't been brought up. Tell me your style of libertarianism and I will go ahead and critique it.[/QUOTE]
Minimal coercive force and voluntary association, to briefly sum it up.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38548802]Cuba has a higher life expectancy at birth, despite being significantly poorer than the United States and is under a Communist regime, and this can be quite strongly attributed to their healthcare system.[/QUOTE]
Yes, let us pay tribute to Cuba's wonderful health care system
[img]http://retardzone.com/uploads/2008/02/cuba-floors.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.therealcuba.com/PHOTO2.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Noble;38550737]Why can the same irrational people, who can't be trusted to run a free market, be trusted to run a government with a monopoly on force and control over other people's lives?[/QUOTE]
They work better for achieving the greatest sum of happiness for the maximum number of people.
[QUOTE=Noble;38550737]Minimal coercive force and voluntary association, to briefly sum it up.[/QUOTE]
How do you get rid of coercive force?
[QUOTE=Noble;38550737]Yes, let us pay tribute to Cuba's wonderful health care system
[img]http://retardzone.com/uploads/2008/02/cuba-floors.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.therealcuba.com/PHOTO2.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
Rather than show pictures from "therealcuba", a site filled with butthurt Cuban aristocrats who lost everything in the revolution after the American puppet got overthrown, I can get some stats:
[quote]Infant mortality was 32 per 1000 live births in Cuba in 1957. In 2000-2005 it was 6.1 per 1000 in Cuba; and, for comparison, 6.8 per 1000 in the United States.[/quote]
[quote]In 2007, the life expectancies at birth were as follows (World Bank data):
Cuba, 78.26 years;
World, 68.76 years;
Latin America and Caribbean, 73.13 years;
high income OECD countries, 79.66 years;
United States, 77.99 years.[/quote]
Also the hospital in question is actually a volunteer hospital providing care to people who are against Castro's regime. It would surprise me if castro did provide adequate health care for dissidents.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38550249]You haven't seen many libertarians then.[/QUOTE]
And I've seen christians advocating murder, but I won't make an argument making it look like all christians are like that.
You are taking the most extreme people from the group and making it look like they are all like that. And you are trying to make it look like that just because you can prove the most extreme people wrong, they are all wrong.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38551168]They work better for achieving the greatest sum of happiness for the maximum number of people. [/quote]
But that's not what you're doing, you're achieving the greatest sum of happiness for the majority (51%) in your democracy and trampling over the individuals rights of everyone else. Not to mention it misses the point of my argument - why do you dismiss the free market on the basis of "irrational actors" and then trust those same irrational actors with holding a much greater responsibility (political power)? What if they (ab)use political power for their own benefit?
[quote]How do you get rid of coercive force?[/quote]
By not initiating force against other individuals (threats, intimidation, physical violence).
[quote]Rather than show pictures from "therealcuba", a site filled with butthurt Cuban aristocrats who lost everything in the revolution after the American puppet got overthrown, I can get some stats[/quote]
Those stats don't say anything about the conditions of the hospitals and the health care system. Correlation doesn't imply causation, either. It could just be that those people live relatively healthier lifestyles, eating less junk food and engaging in more physical activity.
[quote]Also the hospital in question is actually a volunteer hospital providing care to people who are against Castro's regime. It would surprise me if castro did provide adequate health care for dissidents.[/QUOTE]
Source?
Anyway, here's another one:
[quote]
Here's what Fidel Castro said about Clínico Quirúrgico in 1989:
"Now, the old hospital has turned into one of the most modern and best ones in the capital. I should explain that this hospital provided services to a large number of people who live at the other side of the Almendares River." ... "Not only did the number of beds increase, with blocks and civil construction spreading throughout almost 30,000 square meters of construction, but the power unit is totally new-boilers, electric power generators, etc.["]
Reporters from Gentiuno managed to get into the actual hospital with a camera, and they found a much different situation. For example, this is what they found in the emergency room:
[img]http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/pubfiles/cubaho5.jpg[/img]
[/quote]
[url]http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004070.php[/url]
[QUOTE=Noble;38551746]Source?
Anyway, here's another one:
[url]http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004070.php[/url][/QUOTE]
Sobotnik gave you statistics, you're using a single anecdote. You should know better than this.
I could find a shitty hospital in any country in the world if I wanted to argue against that country's healthcare system. It would have a big emotional impact on someone reading it because it's viscerally disgusting, whereas a statistic that says "400 per 100,000 infant mortality rate" is a just a bunch of numbers, even though it's a much stronger piece of evidence.
[QUOTE=Noble;38551746]But that's not what you're doing, you're achieving the greatest sum of happiness for the majority (51%) in your democracy and trampling over the individuals rights of everyone else. Not to mention it misses the point of my argument - why do you dismiss the free market on the basis of "irrational actors" and then trust those same irrational actors with holding a much greater responsibility (political power)? What if they (ab)use political power for their own benefit?[/QUOTE]
They have to at least bend to the will of the people cordially and adapt as social change comes about. In the case of socialised healthcare, that actually works, and it's what people want, once it has been implemented.
Even the tories in Britain don't want to get rid of the NHS (outright that is).
[QUOTE=Noble;38551746]By not initiating force against other individuals (threats, intimidation, physical violence).[/QUOTE]
So what prevents me from punching you in the face right now?
[QUOTE=Noble;38551746]Those stats don't say anything about the conditions of the hospitals and the health care system. Correlation doesn't imply causation, either. It could just be that those people live relatively healthier lifestyles, eating less junk food and engaging in more physical activity.[/QUOTE]
Except if that were the case, how come the "starving cubans in poverty and starvation with broken healthcare" somehow end up living longer than the supposedly freer Americans?
[QUOTE=Noble;38551746]Source?
Anyway, here's another one:
[url]http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004070.php[/url][/QUOTE]
Once again this is another useless anecdote.
Plus you need to provide a source on why you think Cuban hospitals are shit, not me.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38552127]They have to at least bend to the will of the people cordially and adapt as social change comes about.[/quote]
Yet history often shows the complete opposite, where the people have to bend to the will of the politicians. Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il, and a whole other list of terrible rulers.
[quote]In the case of socialised healthcare, that actually works, and it's what people want, once it has been implemented.[/quote]
Obviously it's not what everyone wants. There are people who are against socialized healthcare. They don't want it, but yet they are forced to pay for it. It's more accurate to say that it's what [i]some people[/i] want.
[quote]Even the tories in Britain don't want to get rid of the NHS (outright that is).[/quote]
It's irrelevant what a British political party thinks. They are not representative of my views in any way.
[quote]So what prevents me from punching you in the face right now?[/quote]
Physically? Nothing, though you'll have to deal with the consequences (retaliatory, defensive force, lawsuits, etc). You asked me how we could be rid of coercive force, and my response is that people would have to stop initiating force against other individuals. It's sort of like asking me how we can get rid of death and disease, to which I'd respond that people should stop dying and getting sick. It's kind of a nonsensical question, which is why it gets a nonsensical answer.
[quote]Except if that were the case, how come the "starving cubans in poverty and starvation with broken healthcare" somehow end up living longer than the supposedly freer Americans?[/quote]
They're not, actually, according to the CIA World Factbook, with 2012 estimates
[quote]
51 United States 78.49 2012 est.
.....
60 Cuba 77.87 2012 est.
[/quote]
[url]https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html[/url]
And "supposedly freer"? Well that's a pretty funny statement. According to the World Press Freedom Index 2011-2012, Cuba ranks near the bottom of the list, at 167/179, a full 120 places behind the United States.
[url]http://en.rsf.org/IMG/CLASSEMENT_2012/C_GENERAL_ANG.pdf[/url]
[quote]Once again this is another useless anecdote.
Plus you need to provide a source on why you think Cuban hospitals are shit, not me.[/QUOTE]
I did. I provided several, which you've conveniently ignored. I provided photographic evidence from people who have actually been there and seen how the system actually works. You made a claim that this was a "volunteer hospital" and that it isn't representative of the Cuban health care system, I asked for a source for this claim, where is it?
Just to be clear, the infant mortality rates are essentially useless in any real discussion because of the hugely differing methods used by different countries. For example, many European countries only count infants who have lived a set amount of time outside of the womb in their mortality rates and since most infants die very quickly if they are going to die at all this majorly skews their data. The US counts every infant death after birth in their statistics and therefore have higher rates.
So unless you know the method Cuba uses we can't really compare the two.
[QUOTE=Noble;38552539]Yet history often shows the complete opposite, where the people have to bend to the will of the politicians. Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il, and a whole other list of terrible rulers.[/quote]
That's irrelevant as those are not democratically elected officials. We live in a constitutionally bounded democratic republic which allows the people to elect their leaders, yet also protects minorities. Nobody here is arguing for dictators. This idea that 49% of Americans are trampled over is ridiculous, because we're not that democratic. We have representatives, not a direct democracy. If 49% of people disliked a law, they should practice civil disobedience. That would be the quickest way to change it.
[quote]Obviously it's not what everyone wants. There are people who are against socialized healthcare. They don't want it, but yet they are forced to pay for it. It's more accurate to say that it's what [i]some people[/i] want.[/quote]
There are also some people who wouldn't mind murder being legal. Just because somebody wants it, doesn't mean it's just as valid as another argument. Time and time again has proven that Universal Healthcare leads to higher life expectancies, and is overall cheaper. Any negative attributes are negligible.
[quote]It's irrelevant what a British political party thinks. They are not representative of my views in any way.[/quote]
No point arguing here.
[quote]Physically? Nothing, though you'll have to deal with the consequences (retaliatory, defensive force, lawsuits, etc). You asked me how we could be rid of coercive force, and my response is that people would have to stop initiating force against other individuals. It's sort of like asking me how we can get rid of death and disease, to which I'd respond that people should stop dying and getting sick. It's kind of a nonsensical question, which is why it gets a nonsensical answer.[/quote]
If your answer to getting rid of death and disease is that, I doubt your reasoning. What would stop a large criminal organization from instigating a protection racket against a town? Nothing. In places where police funding has been low, criminal organizations have popped up to do so. Coercion is built into humanity, and you can't get rid of it. The only difference is who's wielding the sword. I'm sure you're sick of hearing about Somalia, but that's what's happening. Large gangs and rulers are taking over territories against people's will. They're too weak to fight back. The reason we don't have it here is because we have a national guard ready to take down anybody attempting to do so. When you retaliation, defensive force, and lawsuits, that's a form of coercion. How do you define retaliation? Defensive force? How the hell would you get somebody without a central justice system to even appear in a court? How about instead of saying "elimination of coercion" you tell us how to do so, and then I can respond appropriately.
[quote]They're not, actually, according to the CIA World Factbook, with 2012 estimates
[url]https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html[/url][/quote]
I'm not going to back this up, as according to the United Nations as well, Cuba's ranked barely worse than the United States.
The problem with choosing Cuba, however, is you're cherry picking your statistics. On your same chart, there's other countries ranked much better in terms of infant mortality. All of the top ones, Monaco, Macau, Japan, Singapore, San Marino, and so on all have Universal Healthcare. That being said about Cuba, their health care improved rapidly after they adopted a Universal Healthcare system in the 1960s, and their medical care suffered after Soviet subsidies ended. If you want to wonder what also causes this bad medical care, how about we look at the US embargo? There's lots of sources on how that harms their healthcare.[url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380757/][1][/url][url=http://www.paho.org/english/sha/prflcub.htm][2][/url][url=http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/review/review_summer_02/txt677cuba.html][3][/url][url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8942780][4][/url]
[quote]And "supposedly freer"? Well that's a pretty funny statement. According to the World Press Freedom Index 2011-2012, Cuba ranks near the bottom of the list, at 167/179, a full 120 places behind the United States.
[url]http://en.rsf.org/IMG/CLASSEMENT_2012/C_GENERAL_ANG.pdf[/url][/quote]
We both know it was overtly dramatic, so don't act like it wasn't. He was referring to the fact that a truly free country should take care of its citizens and not allow them to go bankrupt due to it. I don't believe he would argue that Cuba is truly more free than the United States, but if he would, I would probably disagree. That being said, off the same source other countries with good healthcare and high tax rates rank much higher than the United States. Cuba is once again a cherry picked statistic.
[quote]I did. I provided several, which you've conveniently ignored. I provided photographic evidence from people who have actually been there and seen how the system actually works. You made a claim that this was a "volunteer hospital" and that it isn't representative of the Cuban health care system, I asked for a source for this claim, where is it?[/QUOTE]
Once again, cherry picked. There's also many more factors to consider that I've already references. I would read more from the source that the blog (why did you use this as a source?) linked to, but I don't speak Spanish.
[editline]22nd November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;38552556]Just to be clear, the infant mortality rates are essentially useless in any real discussion because of the hugely differing methods used by different countries. For example, many European countries only count infants who have lived a set amount of time outside of the womb in their mortality rates and since most infants die very quickly if they are going to die at all this majorly skews their data. The US counts every infant death after birth in their statistics and therefore have higher rates.
So unless you know the method Cuba uses we can't really compare the two.[/QUOTE]
They're not useless if they come from the same source, so I'm not quite sure where you got that.
[QUOTE=Noble;38552539]Yet history often shows the complete opposite, where the people have to bend to the will of the politicians. Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il, and a whole other list of terrible rulers.[/QUOTE]
Those rulers are dictators, not democratically elected. Even then, some dictators have their powers limited in some way due to massive revolts, rebellions, coups, etc.
[QUOTE=Noble;38552539]Obviously it's not what everyone wants. There are people who are against socialized healthcare. They don't want it, but yet they are forced to pay for it. It's more accurate to say that it's what [i]some people[/i] want.[/QUOTE]
Is it fair to let the majority have a very important right (right to life) removed, in favour of the right not to pay taxes?
[QUOTE=Noble;38552539]It's irrelevant what a British political party thinks. They are not representative of my views in any way.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but they (and Ronald Reagan) employed policies that are anywhere close to Libertarianism feasible in their respective countries.
[QUOTE=Noble;38552539]Physically? Nothing, though you'll have to deal with the consequences (retaliatory, defensive force, lawsuits, etc). You asked me how we could be rid of coercive force, and my response is that people would have to stop initiating force against other individuals. It's sort of like asking me how we can get rid of death and disease, to which I'd respond that people should stop dying and getting sick. It's kind of a nonsensical question, which is why it gets a nonsensical answer.[/QUOTE]
So what this implies is that coercive force will exist for the rest of time, thus meaning a true libertarian society will never come to fruition.
[QUOTE=Noble;38552539]They're not, actually, according to the CIA World Factbook, with 2012 estimates
[url]https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Even then, the difference seems shockingly small, considering that Cuba has universal and public healthcare and is mired in poverty.
[QUOTE=Noble;38552539]And "supposedly freer"? Well that's a pretty funny statement. According to the World Press Freedom Index 2011-2012, Cuba ranks near the bottom of the list, at 167/179, a full 120 places behind the United States.[/QUOTE]
Americans should be living significantly longer if their society is significantly more free than Cuba going by the Libertarian argument (considering the state owns almost everything in Cuba).
[QUOTE=Noble;38552539]I did. I provided several, which you've conveniently ignored. I provided photographic evidence from people who have actually been there and seen how the system actually works. You made a claim that this was a "volunteer hospital" and that it isn't representative of the Cuban health care system, I asked for a source for this claim, where is it?[/QUOTE]
You need to provide evidence that is legitimately is representative of a state run hospital in Cuba.
[QUOTE=Zally13;38553467]They're not useless if they come from the same source, so I'm not quite sure where you got that.[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality#Measuring_IMR[/URL]
Just look at the section on measuring IMR. This isn't some crazy assertion I made. It's a simple fact. Different countries report IMR differently and therefore the results aren't directly comparable.
#
[QUOTE=sgman91;38553735][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality#Measuring_IMR[/URL]
Just look at the section on measuring IMR. This isn't some crazy assertion I made. It's a simple fact. Different countries report IMR differently and therefore the results aren't directly comparable.[/QUOTE]
Except that there are ways of going around that, and the United Nations covers that. "Probability of dying between birth and exact age 1. It is expressed as deaths per 1,000 births." Therefore, Noble is right by 0.1%, factoring in how the US's embargo has hurt Cuba and its poverty.
[QUOTE=Zally13;38553963]Except that there are ways of going around that, and the United Nations covers that. "Probability of dying between birth and exact age 1. It is expressed as deaths per 1,000 births." Therefore, Noble is right by 0.1%, factoring in how the US's embargo has hurt Cuba and its poverty.[/QUOTE]
They get their data by request, not by collecting it themselves. So the data they receive is whatever the country gives them. Many poorer countries actually have their mortality rates go up when opening new health centers like hospitals simply because more infant deaths are actually recorded.
[QUOTE=stev3;38553875]Pay into a healthcare system that [I]I[/I] think is good or I'll kidnap you, take you away from your family, friends and career and put you in a cage for "tax evasion". Sounds fair.[/QUOTE]
Except that you got that money from the society which has built itself upon taxes. The money is a part of that society, and refusing to pay it is unfair to everybody else who has contributed to allowing you to live in the society and partake in its benefits. There are, of course, options if you do wish to avoid paying taxes. The problem is that those societies aren't favorable, and we reach the quality of living by having taxes that pay for a society.
It is fair.
[editline]22nd November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;38553974]They get their data by request, not by collecting it themselves. So the data they receive is whatever the country gives them.[/QUOTE]
Except that they have a strict criteria, which is the quote.
[QUOTE=stev3;38553875]Pay into a healthcare system that [I]I[/I] think is good or I'll kidnap you, take you away from your family, friends and career and put you in a cage for "tax evasion". Sounds fair.[/QUOTE]
You get free healthcare for yourself and your family though.
Paying a small portion of your wages in return for safe, secure and reliable health care is no different than paying a small portion of your wages in return for a fair judicial system.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
