Because if you agree that there are rural and/or suburban areas with large black and/or hispanic populations, then one can test the “urban slum” hypothesis by looking at those areas. I maintain that there is a relationship between race/ethnicity and risky behavior whether one looks at suburbs, rural areas, or urban areas.
So I would predict that if you look at suburbs and rural areas, you would still see a relationship between race/ethnicity, crime rates, HIV rates, etc. If your hypothesis is correct, there should be no such relationship once you get out of the cities. By your way of seeing things, HIV and crime rates should be about the same as among rural (or suburban) whites, blacks, and hispanics . . . Correct?
Nonsense again. Such a society would be composed of nothing BUT parasites and predators, and their victims, which is why it wouldn’t last long at all. The War of All Against All isn’t a very stable way to run a society, assuming it’s organized enough to qualify as a society.
Again, nonsense. Without interference from a powerful third party, namely the government, employers can and will reduce their workers to slavery, whether or not they bother to use the word. Controlling whether or not someone can eat or have shelter is at least as coercive as pointing a gun at them. The only “freedom” you support is the freedom of the rich to crush everyone else.
No, it’s not. Too many people are selfish or stupid, and won’t return their fair share to society; they will take, but never give back in return unless forced. And they are too foolish to see that if they got their way society would collapse.
No, it’s not. Property rights are not the only rights, and you owe to society the resources it needs to keep running; the resources without which you wouldn’t be in a position to make the moeny you hold up as the Ultimate Moral Value.
In other words, we should render the world into a slave state run for the benefit of the wealthy, who would have the only form of power you consider permissible, and no check on that power would be allowed. And in reality, you wouldn’t even get that far; unrestrained by the government the wealthy would simply hire their own private thugs to keep the common folk properly ground down, just like the good old days.
You keep making speeches about freedom; well, you have freedom for one reason, and that’s because of the government. Without it, you’d just be under the thumb of anyone richer than you are.
My greatest fear of socialism is that it allows the government so much power. It takes away personal responsibility. The government is so extremely inefficient. They do a poor job managing my taxes, education, retirement and other things; why do I want them controlling healthcare?
I want the government controlling as little of my money/life as possible and that is why I dislike the concept of socialism so much.
And, so what ? This whole veneration of “personal responsibility” is simply foolish. Why even HAVE a society if that’s so all important that you are willing to inflict so much suffering in it’s name ? Just go and live in a cave by yourself; otherwise, you are benefiting from others and not taking your precious personal responsibility.
Oh, let me guess. Your insistence on “personal responsibility” only applies to OTHER people; you’ll cheerfully take and take from society, benefit from the results of society. You just don’t want to pay for any of it.
Because they tend to do a better job at that than private industry, judging from other countries ?
And the govenment is not universally less efficient than non-government institutions. Quite often, it’s as good or better. It’s simply good at some things, and bad at others; just as private industry is good at some things and bad at others. This attitude that government is always evil and private industry always better is just as foolish as the Communist idea of having the government control everything.
And what, for example makes you think that the government does a worse job of managing your retirement that the alternatives ? Social Security and the other safety nets were created because your way was tried, and FAILED. Miserably.
Or your example of education; what makes you think that private schools would do better if they had the same budget and had to take every student and not just the desirable ones ?
Comparing rural to rural and urban to urban demographics, I would be surprised to find a significant difference in specific criminal behaviors between ethnic groups. Of, course, every “group” has its own history and I would expect to find minor variations among all the groups. I would expect to find more meth and less crack among poor whites and more crack and less meth among poor blacks, because there will be enough cross-over between the urban and rural groups of the same original culture that the trends of popularity will remain constant. It would be curious to discover whether anyone has actually made a serious study of the issue, given the notoriously sloppy treatment it has been accorded in the past.
Disease transmission would be affected by the fact that rural ethnic people are going to visit relatives living in urban areas where transmission can occur more frequently.
If we have numbers comparing those situations in regards to Kentuckians migrating to Michigan or West Virginians migrating to Ohio from the 1940s through the 1970s, we would have a better base line for comparison than simply flagging some current rate among any groups. In those cases, we would be comparing a (vaguely) Scotch-Irish/British community in its rural setting against the urban populations among whom the groups would exchange visits.
Medicare operates on less than 5% of its cash flow. In my thinly populated state, the Workers’ Compensation program operates on 10% of its cash flow. I doubt there’s a private insurance company which skims off less than 20% for operating costs and salaries. There are inefficiencies in government, but it often does quite a good job.
That still does not address the main issue that I have, which is the fact that I feel the government has too much power. That’s my biggest concern.
I do believe there are some things that the government does effectively. Social Security, at one point, seemed to be a sound program. However, after a while the politicians start dipping into those funds for whatever reason. I have no reason to believe the government would do anything differently with healthcare.
And what makes you think that has anything to do with socialism ? We have right now a distinctly unsocialist Bush Administration that’s grabbed for all the power it could get; lack of socialism is no protection. People aren’t exactly pouring over the border to escape the brutal tyranny of that vilely socialistic Canada, either.
SS is still a viable program. And what makes you think that the people who run non-government organizations don’t raid organization funds for themselves ?
And again; judging from other countries, we can except better health care from a socialized system, like it or not.
I never said that all coercion is wrong, and if I did I misspoke. The Initiator of Coercion is wrong. Therefore in your above scenario me dumping trash in the river is coercing you and thus wrong, and a response of coercion may be justified. Im sorry if I was not being clear earlier. I do not believe people are in a vacuum, but I do believe that people are responsible for their own actions and not the actions of any other. I realize that I sound cold harded but I am not really, I believe that people should take care of each other, I just do not believe that they should be coerced into taking care of each other. Even though they should be coerced into not harming each other.
Would you agree that the police and military exist for the purpose of a response of coercion to wrongdoing?
Would you agree that they are necessary? Or do you believe that the police and military should be an opt-in thing, where they are voluntarily contributed to, and are under no moral or legal obligation to respond to those not paying for their upkeep and existence?
If you agree that the police are necessary for the purpose described above (and from the post I quoted I think you do), then how can you argue that you, as a paying supporter of the police, have no responsibilty, and therefore culpability (however slight), for their actions?
An excellent analysis of corporate behavior in terms of sociopathy is the book The Corporation Is A Sociopath. See The Corporation Is A Sociopath
“The corporation is compared to a sociopath. The sociopathic personality is irresponsible, manipulating, grandiose, lacking in empathy, has antisocial tendencies, refuses to accept responsibility for its actions, and cannot feel remorse…Many of the attitudes people adopt and the actions they execute when acting as corporate operatives can be characterized as sociopathic.”
SS is not a viable programme. It is a ponzi scheme. There is a very big crisis in the SS system. I am quite sure that I will not receive any money from SS by the time I retire. They will continue raising the age at which a person can receive.
And, if you have never lived in a country with socialized medicine, don’t say that it is the better way. I have lived in a country with socialized healthcare and it is not the dream that people paint it out to be. Huge waiting lists for surgeries, less than competent doctors and poorly trained medical staff is what I had to look forward to. I would take the current health care system in the US a thousand times over the one I had before.
Which country was this? Yes there are waiting lists for non-urgent surgery. But people don’t die for lack of funds (I’ve lived in 2 countries with UHC and no the US which does not). You say you lived there but tell me more about your experiences with it - because I think you’re being awfully selective about this.
An anecdote, if you will. I’ve had a couple of melanoma run-ins. Under UHC no problem. All taken care of. If it recurs here…well I have no insurance. I never see a doctor. Ever. Because I can’t afford it. I suppose I could get on a plane and go home but millions of Americans don’t have that option. I would take any UHC system over the expensive mess that is the US ‘healthcare’ system.
Poorly trained staff and less than competent doctors? Where were you, Mars? I just simply don’t believe you.
I wonder how so many countries with universal (or as some would say “socialized”) health care manage to outperform the USA on broad measures of performance. See my post above.
We’ve had at least one thread in the not so distant past asking Dopers from countries with universal health care about their experiences and level of satisfaction. Most reported long waits for specialized care except in emergencies. Generally ratings were positive. I don’t have time to search for the thread; a little help please?
Did you not read what I wrote? I listed several reasons why the programme sucked.
The country I lived in was Ireland. I had a fever of near 105 degrees and some type of infection in my leg. The doctors were dumbfounded. I came back to America and got treated, diagnosed and was well within several weeks. If you don’t believe me, I don’t care. That doesn’t matter one tiny bit to me. Maybe I am being selective. I am choosing to talk about the situation that affected me, as that is the only one I give a rat’s arse about.