Brits vs. Americans

Is this the same type of ranking system that if the British media happen to say a bad word about a 'whistle blower' they sink 10 places down the ranks of 'media freedom'?
But if they happen to say something positive about a 'whistle blower' they win a Nobel peace prize for 'media freedom'?
I'll let those 'whistle blowers' have their dinner parties and bemoan our 'media freedom' all they like.
It is quite meaningless.

It is not 23 points it is: 0.046 points

You may notice the US is: 0.921 and the UK is: 0.875 in the human development rankings, yet they can't even provide everybody with the same healthcare system.
That is the difference between an A and an A+ hardly really worth talking about.
Obviously providing 'universal healthcare' isn't part of 'human development'.

You are a larger nation because you are a larger country.
I won't bring up the 'commonwealth'.

 

American men,, don't get your boxer briefs into a snit now. LOL

 

Where do I start. Well, everything here is wrong. Sorry.

 

You sound pretty biased, naturally you're from the UK. I don't know about the nonsense controversy you speak of. Perhaps I should remind you, the UK is a member of the entity that publishes this report.

Moving on, healthcare has little to do with the topic - education and style of speech. But since you've brought it up I will touch on it. Our population is 4.96 times greater than the UK's, making it more difficult to effectively change the structure of our healthcare system in a speedy and seamless transition. There are several cons that negate the benefit of universal healthcare coverage, longer waiting periods and delayed treatment being the chief issues. Not sure if you know much about insurance and health care practice management (thats actually my occupation), so I'll fill in the blanks for you. MOST physicians are in it for the money. I'll express myself in a less pessimistic, more factual tone; physicians have extremely high overhead. This means if your insurance doesn't pay well (like the cheap policies employers are purchasing for compliance), quality doctors are less likely to accept those patients because they opt out of those networks. What happens if fewer doctors are accepting this type of coverage? The new doctors, less experienced, less credentialed, are accepting the policies and turning the office out like a revolving door for cattle. Is that quality healthcare? No. And this is the issue as a result of bureaucratic healthcare.

By the way, we're are larger nation because we chose to be this way and agreed to unite due to similar interests. Our country began as a tiny colony of fed up English men looking for better lives, then formed several territories, evolved into unions, and soon became one nation consisting of states and commonwealths. You could use a brush up on American History, and how we came to be.

 

It's a tad hypocritical to call me biased.

If you don't know the 'controversy' I speak of, then perhaps hold your tongue until you do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
(WE HAPPEN TO BE 'WINNING' YOU ON THAT)
THE POINT IS, THE DIFFERENCES ARE MINISCULE.

I think you just made my argument for me.

'MOST physicians are in it for the money. This means if your insurance doesn't pay well (like the cheap policies employers are purchasing for compliance), quality doctors are less likely to accept those patients because they opt out of those networks. What happens if fewer doctors are accepting this type of coverage? The new doctors, less experienced, less credentialed, are accepting the policies and turning the office out like a revolving door for cattle. Is that quality healthcare? No. And this is the issue as a result of bureaucratic healthcare.'

 

I see odon is still obsessed with America

 

No. I'm bigging up the UK. Obviously you can't see that. No worries.

 

I can wait a few weeks rather than pay £30,000 for a stay in hospital.

 

Illuminating facts is not bias. You're the one taking issue with the UN report claiming favoritism and free speech issues. Wikipedia is not a source I would ever site for accuracy or intelligible debate. One, its a user edited website. Two, the source for your little chart is a French group of journalists. Not knocking the French but we all know they hate us. Haha kidding, but seriously there is more accuracy in truth from a panel of 193 experts than a single expert (let alone the French journalists). Its called the delphi method, look it up.

 

Who do you think pays for those costs? LOL You think they magically dissipate because you have insurance? Un-insert head from arse, odon. You're just being obstinate and stubborn.

I also want to point out, insurance pays UP TO a certain amount annually/per lifetime/procedure. Insurance is not a waiver to obtain free healthcare. Granted, insurance companies negotiate lower fees with doctors, you will still pay the difference. Further, you will pay anything in excess of your annual maximum (typically 5k per year). So if you require 30k in treatment, you'll pay the majority out of pocket anyway and still have to wait for claims. And its the same process in either country.

Oy vey.

.

 

interesting sentiment...
fucking horrible tattoo.

 

And not patriotic at all. Its those god damned Americans who take the cake for obnoxious patriotism.

 

You personally pay for it. That being the point.

Although the United States is 23 positions (rather than points) ahead of the UK in the the 'human development' chart the difference is miniscule, so using terms such as 'kicking the UK's ass' is, imho, fairly biased.
I'm saying there isn't a hell of a lot of difference,
I feel that is not biased or ok less biased.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

Look at what it offers, and the references it uses. Where is it wrong?

Spend a fraction more time looking at what is posted before you comment...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders#Partners

 

Yeah, so do you. Do you think your healthcare is free to you? I ask this because this all started when you compared our healthcare systems. Its a moot point to begin with.

Well I didn't realize we were splitting hairs. From a competitive standpoint, a 23 position differential is significant however small the margin may be. But there can only be one number-one. Right?

The sources for your argument are…? Journalists? What are their credentials? Again, I trust the empirical ranking by 193 UN experts over a group of randoms from Pakistan and Somalia. I have a question for you, when you make a decision, does context ever factor in?


I did research it. More than you actually. I went directly to the publication source and read their own "about us" rather than Wikipedia's. You cite third world, tyrannical and corrupt, war torn countries as reliable sources of information to reflect the real goings on in places like the United States and your own country? Lol ok!

 

The U.S is NOT No. 1 with regards to the 'human development' chart.

You can split hairs if the difference between 0.955 and 0.921 makes any tangible difference.

'The organization has consultant status at the United Nations'

Do I need to say anything more?

(all garnered from Wikipedia)

 

I gave you that information, I pointed out that the US was 3rd (with Norway and Australia preceding). I feel like I need to type more slowly for you… or space out the letters so you follow along better. It's called a sense of humor. I guess Americans are better at that too (lol kidding!!). I know Brits are typically pretty good humored, but you know the law of averages………….I'll let it go now.

No, consultant in what capacity? You don't know. For all you know that could be a political relationship.

Ps.. in terms of tangible difference. You're looking at weighted averages to account for sample size (drastic difference in populations). We have a hell of a lot of people needed to compete against the smaller standard deviation of a small country like yours. I think that large group people is pretty significant.

 

I do not think you pointed that out.

I can appreciate a sense of humour, but it seems like you are deflating the balloon you pumped up earlier rather than making a 'joke'.
That's fine. Just admit it.

It does not matter in what 'capacity' the 'capacity' is within the UN.
You know, the UN where you say: 'I trust the empirical ranking by 193 UN experts'
So, you trust some of the UN but not other parts of it?
The bits that you don't must have a: political 'relationship' (what ever that means)

 

You don't think I pointed it out? Refer back to my post #296, which you text quoted in post #301. I did point it out, you just forgot or failed to notice. Then stubbornly argued it instead of re-reading to be sure.

I'm pointing out that you're wrong and you're sorely losing this argument.

You're entitled to your opinion about what matters and doesn't. But a consultant isn't member status

 

I was referring to this: 'But there can only be one number-one.' (No. 1 being the U.S I presumed)

That is why I said: 'The U.S is NOT No. 1 with regards to the 'human development' chart.'

I do no not think you said: ''I pointed out that the US was 3rd'

If you did transgenically then I apologise.

Now who is spitting hairs?

 

Yes. I'm aware of what you were responding to. Its not that difficult to follow but it is tiring to have this conversation with you. Because you're dragging it along and taking us nowhere in a vain attempt to be right about something.

You're placing too much emphasis on one group, inflating their importance. Pointing this out is not splitting hairs, thats telling you the definition of consultant because you don't seem to understand what it means.