First Test for New Health Care Bill

Originally posted by FMF
You're against greater access to health services for the less well off because it would increase competition and make the economy more cost effective?

I'm for greater access to health services by removing imposed constraints which will make them cheaper for everyone.

Originally posted by spruce112358
You seem to want to blind the one-eyed man so that no one has an unfair advantage.

You think the one-eyed man will be blinded by helping the blind people? Some king he'd make.

Originally posted by spruce112358
"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." That's been recognized for a long time.

You seem to want to blind the one-eyed man so that no one has an unfair advantage.

Would you be better off being one-eyed in a land of blind people? Well, you might be king, but I doubt the economy would be thriving. It appears that you want to blind others so that you - the one-eyed - have an unfair advantage.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Would you be better off being one-eyed in a land of blind people? Well, you might be king, but I doubt the economy would be thriving. It appears that you want to blind others so that you - the one-eyed - have an unfair advantage.

As William J. H. Boetcker said:

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.

Originally posted by spruce112358
As William J. H. Boetcker said:

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.

Yes, you can. Social mobility figures show it. But you don't like facts, do you?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes, you can. Social mobility figures show it. But you don't like facts, do you?

You are very attached to social mobility as a measure of "how things are going" in a society. I've already pointed out that societies that are less homogeneous -- such as the US -- have lower social mobility. Another example is the UK, where an enormous increase in immigration since the 1960's may have lowered social mobility -- despite national health and a generally higher level of social programs than the US.

This challenges the notion that changes in social mobility are at all related to government policies other than immigration.

You then played the "pseudo-racist" card (and blamed me for it) even though I was talking about culture, not race. I am not against immigration at all -- and wouldn't be even if I thought it was lowering social mobility because I think multiculturalism is stimulating for a society.

So which of the two of us doesn't like facts?

Originally posted by spruce112358
You are very attached to social mobility as a measure of "how things are going" in a society. I've already pointed out that societies that are less homogeneous -- such as the US -- have lower social mobility. Another example is the UK, where an enormous increase in immigration since the 1960's may have lowered social mobility -- despite national health lturalism is stimulating for a society.

So which of the two of us doesn't like facts?

And you didn't respond to my question. If it's true that cultural diversity has such a large impact on social mobility, how come social mobility is higher here, where arguably cultural diversity is also greater than in the US (racial/ethnic diversity is comparable, while religious diversity is much greater)? I know the answer. Do you?

I called it the "pseudo-racist" card because it's the same card that is played by the likes of Sam the Sham on this forum.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
And you didn't respond to my question. If it's true that cultural diversity has such a large impact on social mobility, how come social mobility is higher here, where arguably cultural diversity is also greater than in the US (racial/ethnic diversity is comparable, while religious diversity is much greater)? I know the answer. Do you?

I called it the ...[text shortened]... card because it's the same card that is played by the likes of Sam the Sham on this forum.

When you say "here" do you mean the Netherlands? If so, then yes, you are a significantly more homogeneous society than the US. Taking "European" as equivalent to "white" in the US (e.g. European descent) that would be 86% vs. 75% white. Culture doesn't overlap exactly with race, of course, but this gives a good indication. All European countries I have visited are more homogeneous than the US.

Major ethnic: Dutch 80.7%

Minor ethnic:

European Union 5%
Indonesian 2.4%
Turkish 2.2%
Surinamese 2%
Moroccan 2%
Netherlands Antilles/Aruba 0.8%
other 4.8%