Europe and freedom, not getting it...

[ballen0351]

Really? Bob's already posted that you have more laws to break so more things to arrest and charge people with.

Yes really and im not bias either lol

 

[Tez3]

Yes really and im not bias either lol

Ah the joy of self delusion


On Bili's self righteous statement on the death penalty, so you are saying that you mustn't kill others because it's wrong but if you do the state will kill you, some lesson. if 'government' healthcare is so bad why is America so far down the list of good healthcare providers ( I did post the link in a previous post) and why is your life expectancy shorter than ours and the infant mortality rate higher?

 

[billc]

The myth of infant mortality rates...

http://www.biggovhealth.org/resource/myths-facts/infant-mortality-and-premature-birth/

Myth: The U.S. infant mortality rate is higher than that of other countries
Fact: The U.S.’ infant mortality rate is not higher; the rates of Canada and many European countries are artificially low, due to more restrictive definitions of live birth. There also are variations in the willingness of nations to save very low birth weight and gestation babies.
The ethnic heterogeneity of the U.S. works against it because different ethnic and cultural groups may have widely different risk factors and genetic predispositions.
Definitions of a live birth, and therefore which babies are counted in the infant mortality statistics very considerably. The U.S. uses the full WHO definition, while Germany omits one of the four criteria. The U.K. defines a still birth “a child which has issued forth from its mother after the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy and which did not at any time after being completely expelled from its mother breathe or show any other signs of life.”[SUP]1[/SUP]
This leaves what constitutes a sign of life open and places those born before 24 weeks in a gray area. Canada uses the complete WHO definition but struggles with tens of thousands of missing birth records and increasing numbers of mothers sent to the U.S. for care.[SUP]2[/SUP] France requires “a medical certificate [that] attests that the child was born ‘alive and viable’” for baby who died soon after birth to be counted, which may be difficult to obtain.

---

 

[ballen0351]

Bob shoddy police work Is far from the top reasons cases are dropped. The #1top reason cases get dropped is because a victim or witness does not show up. The state then has no evidence and case is dropped. Second reason at least where I work is time. Courts are so over crowded that in are courts they will drop all misdemenors on an over crowded day as long as the person arrested has no record and there is no victim. Mainly drug cases, traffic arrests, public nuances stuff like peeing in public in alleys and such even if the officer objects. Are cases dropped for poor police work sure but why would I want to do hours of paperwork for no reason so most cops I know do try to do it right. Alot is beyond our control.

 

[billc]

And on healthcare...

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-3105523.html

 

[Tez3]

The myth of infant mortality rates...

http://www.biggovhealth.org/resource/myths-facts/infant-mortality-and-premature-birth/

---

LOL, that will be an unbiased, independant study would it? No, didn't think so. You're aving a Steffi Graf mate.

 

[billc]

and on healthcare, try bringing in 20 million illegal aliens from poverty stricken 3rd world countries and put them into your healthcare system and see what that does to you mortality rates.

And from the link above:

Still, there's one part of this argument that hasn't been quite so easy to
rebut. It's the suggestion that countries with universal health insurance lag in
one crucial area of care: "high-end" treatment. As the argument goes, all of
those general statistics comparing national health care performance are
interesting but ultimately insignificant. What we should really care
about, these critics of universal coverage say, is how well each country does at
taking care of people with the most serious diseases — particularly
cancer.

It's tougher to rebut this claim on the merits because, in at
least some respects, the U.S. really does seem to be a world leader in curing
cancer. And it's a powerful argument politically because cancer is such a truly
frightening disease. But it's one thing to say the U.S. is one of the best
countries in the world for curing cancer. It's quite another to say the U.S. is
unambiguously the best of all — and that government interference keeps other
countries from keeping up with us. It's the latter set of claims that the
opponents of universal health insurance, particularly on the right, love to
make. And, thanks to a new study, there's good reason to think they are wrong.


The study, from April's edition of the Annals of Oncology, comes from
Swedish researchers Bengt Jonsson and Nils Wilking. It begins with a premise
about the nature of cancer care: Recent advances in survival rates, the two
researchers say, have a lot to do with the development and use of new drugs. So
if you want to see how well a country is treating its cancer patients, they
suggest, one good test is to measure how quickly that nation approves the latest
treatments and gets them out to people that might benefit from them.

 

[billc]

From American thinker on health care and Europe:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/the_cost_of_free_government_he_1.html

[FONT=times new roman,times]Is Government-Run Health Care Better? Proponents of government-run health care argue that Americans will receive better care despite the foregoing. Their main argument has been that despite paying more for health care the United States trails other countries in infant mortality and average life expectancy. [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]However, neither is a good measure of the quality of a country's health care system. Each depends more on genetic makeup, personal lifestyle (including diet and physical activity), education, and environment than available health care. For example, in their book The Business of Health, Robert L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider found that if it weren't for our high rate of deaths from homicides and car accidents Americans would have the highest life expectancy. [/FONT]

Proponents of government-run health care like to point out that countries with such a system spend a smaller percentage of their gross domestic product on health care than the United States. What they don't like to mention is how those savings are achieved. For example:

Patients Lose the Right To Decide What Treatment They'll Receive. Instead, patients receive whatever care politicians and bureaucratic number crunchers decide is "cost effective."

Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence usually won't approve a medical procedure or medicine unless its cost, divided by the number of quality-adjusted life years that it will give a patient, is no more than what it values a year of life in great health - £30,000 (about $44,820). So if you want a medical procedure that is expected to extend your life by four years but it costs $40,000 and bureaucrats decide that it will improve the quality of your life by 0.2 (death is zero, 1.0 is best possible health, and negative values can be assigned), you're out of luck because $40,000 divided by 0.8 (4 X 0.2) is $50,000.

There Are Long Waits for Care. One way governments reduce health care costs is to require patients to wait for treatment. Patients have to wait to see a general practitioner, then wait to see a specialist, then wait for any diagnostic tests, and then wait for treatment.

The United Kingdom's National Health Service recently congratulated itself for reducing to 18 weeks the average time that a patient has to wait from referral to a specialist to treatment. Last year, Canadians had to wait an average of 17.3 weeks from referral to a specialist to treatment (Fraser Institute's Waiting Your Turn). The median wait was 4.9 weeks for a CT scan, 9.7 weeks for an MRI, and 4.4 weeks for an ultrasound.

Delay in treatment is not merely an inconvenience. Think of the pain and suffering it costs patients. Or lost work time, decreased productivity, and sick pay. Worse, think of the number of deaths caused by delays in treatment.

Patients Are Denied the Latest Medical Technology and Medicines. To save money, countries with government-run health care deny or limit access to new technology and medicines. Those with a rare disease are often out of luck because medicines for their disease usually cost more than their quality-adjusted life years are deemed worth.

 

[billc]

American thinker, another source for the truth about infant mortality rates...

Infant mortality statistics are difficult to compare because other countries don't count as live births infants below a certain weight or gestational age. June E. O'Neill and Dave M. O'Neill found that Canada's infant mortality would be higher than ours if Canadians had as many low-weight births (the U.S. has almost three times as many teen mothers, who tend to give birth to lower-weight infants).

also...

[FONT=times new roman,times]A better measure of a country's health care is how well it actually treats patients. The CONCORD study published in 2008 found that the five-year survival rate for cancer (adjusted for other causes of death) is much higher in the United States than in Europe (e.g., 91.9% vs. 57.1% for prostate cancer, 83.9% vs. 73% for breast cancer, 60.1% vs. 46.8% for men with colon cancer, and 60.1 vs. 48.4% for women with colon cancer). The United Kingdom, which has had government-run health care since 1948, has survival rates lower than those for Europe as a whole.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Proponents of government-run health care argue that more preventive care will be provided. However, a 2007 Commonwealth Fund report comparing the U.S., Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom found that the U.S. was #1 in preventive care. Eighty-five percent of U.S. women age 25-64 reported that they had a Pap test in the past two years (compared to 58% in the United Kingdom); 84% of U.S. women age 50-64 reported that they had a mammogram in the past two years (compared to 63% in the United Kingdom).[/FONT]

 

[billc]

Hmmm...on cancer and the kingdom...

The United Kingdom, which has had government-run health care since 1948, has survival rates lower than those for Europe as a whole.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Drifting back into the health care debate. Lets focus on the 'freedom' debate k?

Thanks.

 

[Scott T]

]When a nation is persuaded / coerced into giving sovereignty to the requirements of continental economic union instead of the interests of its citizens then yes, freedom is eroded.
[/B]
Europe as a monolithic entity is, to say the least, not pleased when member nations break rank and assert that they have every right to govern theirselves and not be dictated centrally.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/german-plan-savings-czar-finds-taker-15476408#.TzI5t-Q_hlM (on Greece not accepting German financial overseeing "czar")

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/14/eu-treaty-cameron-sarkozy-row (on French / German annoyance over David Cameron's veto)

The desire for an oligarchic Europe is absolutely an infringement upon the individual self-governing right of nations and by inference upon the individual citizen therein.

Oddly enough, the bolded above also describes Canadian/American relations, and our freedoms -- most notably our right to privacy -- have been eroded as a result of events that happened over a decade ago as well as economic concerns.

 

[Tez3]

Politics is a game Europeans have been playing for centuries longer than the Americans, the politics played out in the EU is far better than the politics that used to be played out on the battlefields. A lot of things are made up about the EU, our politicians take delight in trying to convince us that they are fighting hard against a Europe that is trying to take us over, they come back with all these 'victories' and scare stories about how Europe wants to take us over, actually it doesn't and one of the 'victories' they saved us from was having more workers rights, the Uk vetoed and cut some of the rights the EU gives workers. Don't believe all you read and hear about the EU and how we are going to be one big country, that's politicians scare tactics, there's not a country in the EU that would give up it's sovereign statehood for that.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Politics is a game Europeans have been playing for centuries longer than the Americans, the politics played out in the EU is far better than the politics that used to be played out on the battlefields. A lot of things are made up about the EU, our politicians take delight in trying to convince us that they are fighting hard against a Europe that is trying to take us over, they come back with all these 'victories' and scare stories about how Europe wants to take us over, actually it doesn't and one of the 'victories' they saved us from was having more workers rights, the Uk vetoed and cut some of the rights the EU gives workers. Don't believe all you read and hear about the EU and how we are going to be one big country, that's politicians scare tactics, there's not a country in the EU that would give up it's sovereign statehood for that.

And yet, in the US, most citizens think a 'state' is just a political border like a big giant city.

 

[Tez3]

A state is what you come home in after being on a pub crawl!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

A state is what you come home in after being on a pub crawl!

I thought that was a vomit, blood n piss drenched blanket, given to you by a nice EMT who couldn't locate your pants?

 

[MariaK]

You wo't be prosecuted for discussing things...yet, but the University history department is the home of left wing academics. Political correctness, the attempt to get people to censor their own speech originated on left wing college campuses. If you can silence people on certain subjects, you can control how those subjects are taught.QUOTE]

Guys, I got confused - coming from Russia I always thought that "left" means being non-conservative etc. here in the USA. As far as I understand the tenure system originated so that professors would not get fired expressing free speech. So I always found "left wing" professors here are more interested in hearing different opinions on different topics in comparison to conservative people out of campus (I live in Indiana ).

Regarding freedom - what still surprises me and I can't understand it in the USA: 1. Women fight to have a right to have abortion. In Russia we had this right since 1920s... nobody fights for it - you can do whatever you want to. 2. Right to vote - as far as I remember certain groups of population - like women, native Americans etc. got this right only in 1930s-1940s in the USA, if not later. Again, in Russia we had these rights since February revoluation in 1917 (not the communist October revolution that was later). I mean, you can tell me that these rights were not used in real life when communists came to power (think about it as nobody to vote except of for one leader). But intrinsically the right to vote is the right to vote, so you can easily find old photographs of, say, women in Russia in 1920s getting to discuss who to vote for. While I have problems imagining women in the USA who would get together to discuss whom to vote for in 1920s-1930s in the USA.

I mean I'm not a feminist - because we had all these rights and freedom for women prior to the appearance of a feminist movement in the USA. I guess I do not even understand what a feminist movement is... But sometimes I'm just puzzled that people here (e.g. women) have to fight for rights that I always thought as something natural and introduced almost 100 years ago.

 

[billc]

The left wing professors use the tenure system to protect themselves, they don't extend that to professors who are conservative. The "Free speech," movement in the 1960's was used to ensure that left leaning professors could openly discuss their ideas without fear of reprisals from the administration. Once they gained positions of power, on the boards that granted tenure, for example, they used their power to silence opinions that disagreed with them. America is a religous country and abortion goes against the tenets of christianity in particular, and other religions in some ways similiarly. Abortion is seen as ending a human life, or murdering an innocent human being. That is why abortion is so opposed here in the states.

Here is a video that discusses "political correctness."

 

[Bob Hubbard]

[h=1]Press Freedom Violations on the Rise, Watchdog Says[/h] A media watchdog recorded more than 500 press freedom violations over the past year in southeast and central Europe, an increase over 2010 figures.






[h=1]European Court of Human Rights: violation of freedom of expression in case Heinisch v. Germany[/h]
http://human-rights-convention.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/cour2.jpgIn the Chamber judgment on 21 July, in the case Heinisch v. Germany, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the dismissal of a geriatric nurse after having brought a criminal complaint against her employer alleging deficiencies in the care provided.







2 stories. Europe has problems. Good luck wearing a burka in France. Don't remind the Germans about that little spat in the 1940's. Britain has 6 cameras on every street corner. Turkey has more violations of rights than Carter has liver spots.

Spend some time on Google, and you'll find lots of violations in Europe.

Meanwhile the US is sicking legions of rights violating cops on protesters and cameramen with little regard to that little "Constitution" thing, while seeking to disarm it's population while deeming breathing to be a taxable act.

Everyone thinks their system of screwing people is freer and less violative than anyone elses system of rights sodomy. *shrug*

Have I missed anything?

 

[Tez3]

And how do you know there are these many violations of human rights? Answer..because we have the freedom to complain about them, investigate them and stop the people doing them. We have a Court of Human Rights where one can take your allegations of violations in human rights and where you will be heard and judgement given , judgments moreover that find in the peoples favour not the governments or organisations.
However saying 'Europe' has problems is again seeing it as one country instead of the 50 there actually are.