American ethos hurting Americans

According to this article AlterNet: Health & Wellness: Are You One of the Shrinking Americans? Americans are suffering because of a lack of social services that the rest of the developed countries take for granted.

"The key finding of the study is is not that we [Americans] are shrinking in absolute terms, it's that we're falling behind relative to our wealthy cousins. Europeans have grown in height as much as the rise in their average incomes during the 20th century would predict; Americans have not.

"And it's not just height. Among the 20 most developed countries in the world, the United States is now dead last in life expectancy at birth, but leads the pack in infant mortality -- forty percent higher than the runner-up -- and in the percentage of the population that will die before reaching 60. (Perhaps it shouldn't be much of a surprise, then, that we lead the world in mental illness.)

"These are above all else, a reflection of our priorities. It's not just that we accept a child poverty rate that would be a front-page scandal in most of the world's wealthy countries, we also spend the least on social services. The two are correlated; as economist Sylvia Allegretto has pointed out, "those countries with higher social expenditures -- as a percentage of gross domestic product, or GDP -- have dramatically lower poverty rates among children."

In order to save American lives and improve the health of Americans, Isn't it time to rethink the American ethos of the rugged individual and laissez-faire capitalism. Clearly, apart from the wealthy few the American ideal isn't very ideal.

Regards
S.

[Osborn F Enready]

Nothing like a big FAT appeal to emotion......

pfffft :rolleyes:

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Nothing like a big FAT appeal to emotion...... pfffft :rolleyes:

Nothing like a big, FAT, specious non sequitur to avoid addressing the issues raised by the research.

Regards
S.

[Osborn F Enready]

What was the aim of the research? To show that America is less socialist than socialist nations?

NO KIDDING. Thanks, we choose that, next?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready What was the aim of the research? To show that America is less socialist than socialist nations? NO KIDDING. Thanks, we choose that, next?

You, of course, would have to either/or read the research, the article about it, or contact the researchers to answer that question.

Of course, America is "less socialist" than many nations. That's obvious on the streets and in the statistics.

Do you not think, however, that it might be helpful for you and other people to understand the negative health and morbidity consequences of that choice?

Or perhaps you were already aware of the negative effects of current American social policy?

Regards
S.

[Osborn F Enready]

sdbest said: Do you not think, however, that it might be helpful for you and other people to understand the negative health and morbidity consequences of that choice?

The only "negative" consequences of that choice are being deprived non-individual rights based, entitlements. Most people can understand this by simply "placing the shoe on the other foot" so to speak, using logic and reason.

sdbest said: Or perhaps you were already aware of the negative effects of current American social policy?

Current American policy, social or otherwise, has little to do with individual liberty, or the Constitution. You know this, so why attempt to set up the false debate.

I hold no respect nor do I honor most of the "current" policies put forth, or upheld by the courts, or the lawmakers of the U.S.

We are currently under an attack, an attack to fully subvert and remove the Constitution, the concept of individual rights, and it is from within the ranks of the United States, put forth by the majority of Republicans and Democrats.

I however, still retain arms, and the right to own them.

As long as that is the case, I will put force as the last method reasonable to use to win this battle, but I STILL reserve that right.

If people wish to seek the "social entitlements" of other nations, they are free in the U.S. to form private collectives, communes and "societies" of their own to provide those of free-will. They DON'T have the right to use government force, to provide those social entitlements however, which is what people like you (who aren't even American) are trying to push into the American culture as a valid basis for law.

Arguing rights and values with you is a folly of subjectivist appeal to emotion, which is why I usually try to avoid it, but the article provided a laugh while it attempted to insult my intelligence, so I commented.

[Athena]

Quote by: sdbest According to this article AlterNet: Health & Wellness: Are You One of the Shrinking Americans? Americans are suffering because of a lack of social services that the rest of the developed countries take for granted. "The key finding of the study is is not that we [Americans] are shrinking in absolute terms, it's that we're falling behind relative to our wealthy cousins. Europeans have grown in height as much as the rise in their average incomes during the 20th century would predict; Americans have not. "And it's not just height. Among the 20 most developed countries in the world, the United States is now dead last in life expectancy at birth, but leads the pack in infant mortality -- forty percent higher than the runner-up -- and in the percentage of the population that will die before reaching 60. (Perhaps it shouldn't be much of a surprise, then, that we lead the world in mental illness.) "These are above all else, a reflection of our priorities. It's not just that we accept a child poverty rate that would be a front-page scandal in most of the world's wealthy countries, we also spend the least on social services. The two are correlated; as economist Sylvia Allegretto has pointed out, "those countries with higher social expenditures -- as a percentage of gross domestic product, or GDP -- have dramatically lower poverty rates among children." In order to save American lives and improve the health of Americans, Isn't it time to rethink the American ethos of the rugged individual and laissez-faire capitalism. Clearly, apart from the wealthy few the American ideal isn't very ideal. Regards S.

I think you are very correct. Another problem I would mention is the terrbile of ethics of our services and businesses, because of the excessive focus on profit. We have gone beyond amoral to immoral. Enron was one example, and so is Hillburton- the folks profiting off the disaster in Iraq, like the Vice President of the US who convinced Bush to start this war. However, we have many more little companies conning people and ripping them off, and our medical care wouldn't be so if it were not drug and medical supply companies ripping people off.

I learned of our lag behind other countries many years ago, while studying gerontology. I was ashamed of how shabby our care of the elderly is compared to the advanced European countries.

What is really sad is the citizens of the US don't know they have the highest crime rate and the problems you mentioned, but think they have the best country in the world. It is really excessively industrialized at the cost of family and having well balanced lives,and the last time I looked had the highest industrial accidents rate. This is besides being behind in social services.

[Athena]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The only "negative" consequences of that choice are being deprived non-individual rights based, entitlements. Most people can understand this by simply "placing the shoe on the other foot" so to speak, using logic and reason. Current American policy, social or otherwise, has little to do with individual liberty, or the Constitution. You know this, so why attempt to set up the false debate. I hold no respect nor do I honor most of the "current" policies put forth, or upheld by the courts, or the lawmakers of the U.S. We are currently under an attack, an attack to fully subvert and remove the Constitution, the concept of individual rights, and it is from within the ranks of the United States, put forth by the majority of Republicans and Democrats. I however, still retain arms, and the right to own them. As long as that is the case, I will put force as the last method reasonable to use to win this battle, but I STILL reserve that right. If people wish to seek the "social entitlements" of other nations, they are free in the U.S. to form private collectives, communes and "societies" of their own to provide those of free-will. They DON'T have the right to use government force, to provide those social entitlements however, which is what people like you (who aren't even American) are trying to push into the American culture as a valid basis for law. Arguing rights and values with you is a folly of subjectivist appeal to emotion, which is why I usually try to avoid it, but the article provided a laugh while it attempted to insult my intelligence, so I commented.

Interesting this thread begins as a discussion of the US being behind other modern countries in humantarian ways, and turns into Osborn's argument of his right to have guns and use them.

Sdbest, what were you saying about the US and the mentality of the wild west that seems to be retarding the civilized advancement of the US? If all else fails shoot your way out of it

[Osborn F Enready]

Athena said: Interesting this thread begins as a discussion of the US being behind other modern countries in humantarian ways, and turns into Osborn's argument of his right to have guns and use them.

Interesting that you don't note, as I do, that the thread is about the supposed "wrong" of individual rights, and the supposed "right" of sacrifice based on some subjective "duty" you value, but most don't.

The U.S. wasn't created to be the best provider of those who can't take care of themselves.

The U.S. was created to allow individuals to make the most of themselves, with mutual respect to the lives of others that respected the concept and philosophy of individual rights.

Athena said: Sdbest, what were you saying about the US and the mentality of the wild west that seems to be retarding the civilized advancement of the US? If all else fails shoot your way out of it

I suppose YOU may perceive it that way.

I don't.

I perceive it as "I hold these rights to be self-evident", and those that don't had better be willing to deal with the inevitable consequences of making such a choice to remove those rights.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready If people wish to seek the "social entitlements" of other nations, they are free in the U.S. to form private collectives, communes and "societies" of their own to provide those of free-will. They DON'T have the right to use government force, to provide those social entitlements however, which is what people like you (who aren't even American) are trying to push into the American culture as a valid basis for law.

But we apparently aren't doing this. So is it possible that the people of this nation are suffering for an ideal that doesn't actually make them any happier or better? Is it possible that freedom is actually not worth the cost? And is it possible that your insistence on adherence to this one ideal above all others is actually preventing other Americans from reaching their goals?

Have we created a tyranny of individual rights, when people actually want collectivism?

[Osborn F Enready]

Coffee said: But we apparently aren't doing this. So is it possible that the people of this nation are suffering for an ideal that doesn't actually make them any happier or better?

Those that suffer, suffer of their own will or lack of will to fight it.

Coffee said: Is it possible that freedom is actually not worth the cost?

Many have made that choice, but I never will.

Is freedom worth your life? I say yes, it is worth my life, so I will never be content with anything less, as is my right.

It is your right to sacrifice freedom for security, for economic safety, but you have no right to take away my freedom to do so.

Coffee said: And is it possible that your insistence on adherence to this one ideal above all others is actually preventing other Americans from reaching their goals?

I could care less what others do, within their rights.

You and others seem to fail to understand that subjugation of others rights to appease a "social subjective good" is NOT within your rights.

Coffee said: Have we created a tyranny of individual rights, when people actually want collectivism?

No, what has been created is a vacuum by removing logic and reason from the system that is dependent on both, and faith and "duty" are being supplied to fill the void by those who seek that agenda.

I am ready to revolt, just waiting for the next Tom Paine, and others of that ilk to actually start taking action.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint But we apparently aren't doing this. So is it possible that the people of this nation are suffering for an ideal that doesn't actually make them any happier or better? Is it possible that freedom is actually not worth the cost? And is it possible that your insistence on adherence to this one ideal above all others is actually preventing other Americans from reaching their goals? Have we created a tyranny of individual rights, when people actually want collectivism?

Individual rights are only tyranny for those who wish to take from others by force.

- Rob

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The only "negative" consequences of that choice are being deprived non-individual rights based, entitlements. Most people can understand this by simply "placing the shoe on the other foot" so to speak, using logic and reason.

Are you asserting that the results of the study are incorrect? Clearly their are negative consequences to U.S. social policy. The diminution of rights is only one. Others are enumerated in the research.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready You know this, so why attempt to set up the false debate.

What is false about the debate?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I hold no respect nor do I honor most of the "current" policies put forth, or upheld by the courts, or the lawmakers of the U.S. We are currently under an attack, an attack to fully subvert and remove the Constitution, the concept of individual rights, and it is from within the ranks of the United States, put forth by the majority of Republicans and Democrats. I however, still retain arms, and the right to own them. As long as that is the case, I will put force as the last method reasonable to use to win this battle, but I STILL reserve that right.

Hmmm, a tad paranoid don't you think?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready If people wish to seek the "social entitlements" of other nations, they are free in the U.S. to form private collectives, communes and "societies" of their own to provide those of free-will. They DON'T have the right to use government force, to provide those social entitlements however, which is what people like you (who aren't even American) are trying to push into the American culture as a valid basis for law. Arguing rights and values with you is a folly of subjectivist appeal to emotion, which is why I usually try to avoid it, but the article provided a laugh while it attempted to insult my intelligence, so I commented.

The article was about the health consequences of U.S. social policy. People do have the right to use government force to provide social entitlements, whether you agree with that or not.

In closing, I don't think it's possible to insult your intelligence. Evidence of that is the fact that your response to the article and the research it discussed was to laugh. Poor health, high infant mortality, and mental illness are not funny, at least not in my opinion, and I think most intelligent people would agree.

Regards
S.

[Osborn F Enready]

sdbest said: Are you asserting that the results of the study are incorrect?

I have no proof, or counter-evidence to prove it, but I would alledge biased more than "incorrect".

sdbest said: Clearly their are negative consequences to U.S. social policy.

What is positive, what is negative?

I won't sacrifice my liberty for lower infant mortality rates, sorry. (as if)

sdbest said: What is false about the debate?

You seemed to be making me out as the defender of CURRENT American policy, and I am not. I am seeking a return to constitutional, limited government.

Current American policy, social or otherwise, has little to do with individual liberty, or the Constitution.

sdbest said: Hmmm, a tad paranoid don't you think?

Not at all, no paranoia. Just observant.

sdbest said: The article was about the health consequences of U.S. social policy. People do have the right to use government force to provide social entitlements, whether you agree with that or not.

You can think that if you wish, while sitting in Canada.

sdbest said: In closing, I don't think it's possible to insult your intelligence. Evidence of that is the fact that your response to the article and the research it discussed was to laugh. Poor health, high infant mortality, and mental illness are not funny, at least not in my opinion, and I think most intelligent people would agree.

None of them are "funny", but that wasn't what I was laughing at. I was laughing at your attack on U.S. policy, when your national policy is what many, including I, view to be worse or a step in the wrong direction.

What also isn't funny is the amazing lack of ability you OR I have to truly effect a damn thing in government, even though yours and ours has made several bad steps, bad decisions, and seem to be heading to the same type of end with madmen at the helm.

What do you do when the choice is laugh or cry?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I have no proof, or counter-evidence to prove it, but I would alledge biased more than "incorrect".

That's your bias showing.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready What also isn't funny is the amazing lack of ability you OR I have to truly effect a damn thing in government, even though yours and ours has made several bad steps, bad decisions, and seem to be heading to the same type of end with madmen at the helm. What do you do when the choice is laugh or cry?

Actually, since the early 1970s I've been working for a number of progressive organizations ranging from the International Fund for Animal Welfare to the Nelson Mandela Children's Fund. I've helped found one environmental group and a Canadian political party. I've challenged a number of laws to the Supreme Court. And, I've influenced the course of legislation in a number of countries. That's what I do "when the choice is laugh or cry" because you can also choose to actually do something.

Regards
S.

[Alive]

I'm a strong believer in science and research, but there is strong reason to be very skeptical of any ideological interpretation of such studies. Even if not conducted in the interest of an ideologue itself, it is possible to wildly misinterpret such studies.

There are a number of things that make the US different from the rest of the industrialized nations besides level of socialism. The US is as far as I know the most racially heterogeneous industrialized nation, for example; if you factor for race I bet white Americans do just as well as whites anywhere in Europe if not better. Otherwise, why do so many skilled Europeans want to move here? If you are skilled and smart you can do better in the US than anywhere. If you're a poor inner city black, or a new Hispanic immigrant, you're not going to do as well as some Scandanavian who's family lived there for generations.

Please, people; be sure to take a nuanced, complex look at the data; don't go jumping to conclusions. I think if you study these things in detail you will find that capitalism is usually the key to success, not the source of failure . Indeed, in a trend that is not talked about very often, Europe has begun going the way of the US in the past few decades in terms of capitalism, and has gotten significantly better for it; Europe is becoming more friendly to capitalism because they see the good it has done for the US.

Alive, thank you for your thoughtful post. However, I have a few quibbles.

Quote by: Alive There are a number of things that make the US different from the rest of the industrialized nations besides level of socialism. The US is as far as I know the most racially heterogeneous industrialized nation, for example; if you factor for race I bet white Americans do just as well as whites anywhere in Europe if not better.

Why would you not include people of color in your view of America?Are the living standards of "whites only" only of concern? Do you disavow America's non-white population which amount to almost 50% of the U.S. population?

Quote by: Alive Otherwise, why do so many skilled Europeans want to move here? If you are skilled and smart you can do better in the US than anywhere. If you're a poor inner city black, or a new Hispanic immigrant, you're not going to do as well as some Scandanavian who's family lived there for generations.

Again, this appear to be a highly racist view. Am I mistaken in characterizing it in this way? Many people want to move to the U.S. and many Americans want to move to Canada and other developed countries for many reasons.

Quote by: Alive Please, people; be sure to take a nuanced, complex look at the data; don't go jumping to conclusions. I think if you study these things in detail you will find that capitalism is usually the key to success, not the source of failure . Indeed, in a trend that is not talked about very often, Europe has begun going the way of the US in the past few decades in terms of capitalism, and has gotten significantly better for it; Europe is becoming more friendly to capitalism because they see the good it has done for the US.

The question is not about capitalism, it is about why the U.S. has such a high infant mortality rate, high mental illness rate, and citizens with poor health compared to other developed countries. Your post fails to address these findings, but rather defends capitalism.

Capitalism is not the issue. The issue is the poor health and high morbidity of Americans compared to other developed countries.

Regards
S.

[Alive]

Quote by: sdbest Why would you not include people of color in your view of America?Are the living standards of "whites only" only of concern?

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I don't include people of color in my view of America. I just said there were lots of other differences between the industrialized countries besides socialism that could account for standard of living differences, and gave one example that seems to be relevant because poverty correlates so strongly with race in this country. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to solve this disparity, just that the disparity is one that other countries need to less work to solve simply because the issue is not as present for them.

I was also not, by the way, suggesting that we try to get rid of minorities. I am a strong proponent of free immigration. Immigration makes natives better off and immigrants better off, but it makes the averages go down because the immigrants were so much worse off in their own countries. This is an example of US policy making everyone better, but making the stats look superficially worse. Not that I want to turn this into an immigration discussion, but you have to take immigration into account.

Again, this appear to be a highly racist view. Am I mistaken in characterizing it in this way?

Yes. I'm not a racist, nor am I going to deny being a racist beyond that because its a silly accusation. I am stating true facts. Many skilled Europeans want to move to the US, and do. I know so because I know lots of European, Indian, South American, Asian and other scientists and researchers who work here; in fact American high science and certain technical fields are dominated by intelligent, highly-skilled immigrants who can't find nearly as good opportunities in their own country. This is true in both the private and public sector. It is getting less true because of stupid nativism and because lots of places in the world are becoming better--by following the American example, weirdly enough, and becoming more capitalistic.

If you think it's racist to say that poor inner city blacks have it bad in America, I invite you to go meet some poor urban blacks. I don't know what other statement I said that could be construed as racist. :\

Many people want to move to the U.S. and many Americans want to move to Canada and other developed countries for many reasons.

Lots of people want to come to the US to get rich and then leave, though. :) Rich Americans go to Canada or elsewhere mostly because they like living there, or like the culture or something; I don't think many educated Americans leave to get rich, with the possible exception of the UK or to work in certain industries which are centered in other countries and are in need of American skills. The US still has the best opportunities for skilled people of anywhere.

The question is not about capitalism, it is about why the U.S. has such a high infant mortality rate, high mental illness rate, and citizens with poor health compared to other developed countries. Your post fails to address these findings, but rather defends capitalism.

No just the opposite; I didn't talk about capitalism in any detail at all. What I did was suggest alternative reasons why the stats could come out as they did. And all these reasons are valid.

[Nigh Eve]

Quote by: sdbest The issue is the poor health and high morbidity of Americans compared to other developed countries.

I think pointing fingers at the American liberty is pointing in a cold direction however. (If you can even call it liberty.)

Some Americans get by fine, would you agree? I know many an american (without full pockets I might add) who get by fine. It's their choices in life that make that difference.

People are making poor choices by their own free will. Is it the constitution or the BigMac and pack of smokes? If they want to live longer and better lives, that's their responsibility and NOT mine. If they want to learn the hard way or not learn at all, that's their choice. If someone thinks it's a mistake, that's their opinion. Saying, it's okay, live like that, we'll just take better care of you in exchange for everybody else's money, not just you paying for what you did (Great deal huh?) is not going to help the problem. It may simply foster bad habits.

Quote by: sdbest People do have the right to use government force to provide social entitlements, whether you agree with that or not.

People have the right to start taking my money, time, and effort without my permission?

Quote by: sdbest Have we created a tyranny of individual rights, when people actually want collectivism?

People have the freedom to move or implement collectivism upon those who choose to do so with them. To force it upon the entire populace is not acceptable.

Quote by: Athena We have gone beyond amoral to immoral.

Is that possible? As an amoralist, it doesn't quite make sense to me, although I see what you're getting to if I accept a moralists pov.

Quote by: Athena What is really sad is the citizens of the US don't know they have the highest crime rate and the problems you mentioned, but think they have the best country in the world. It is really excessively industrialized at the cost of family and having well balanced lives,and the last time I looked had the highest industrial accidents rate. This is besides being behind in social services.

Is it reasonable to force the entire populace not responsible for these problems to accept a more socialistic state and have them hand over their money and their children's money to accomplish that in the process?

I'm using money as a generic and understandable term for effort, time and/or property.

Instead of telling Americans to accept a socialistic state or continually descend into a bigger ****-hole, use your collective resources and educate them if you really care about the quality of life for them all.

[Osborn F Enready]

sdbest said: Actually, since the early 1970s I've been working for a number of progressive organizations ranging from the International Fund for Animal Welfare to the Nelson Mandela Children's Fund. I've helped found one environmental group and a Canadian political party. I've challenged a number of laws to the Supreme Court. And, I've influenced the course of legislation in a number of countries. That's what I do "when the choice is laugh or cry" because you can also choose to actually do something.

I choose to do something too..... resist organizations like you are starting, and laws that eminate from "socialist" or "communist" nations or peoples. I do quite a bit, but we each work in our own ways.