Why is America becoming a third world country?

Why is America becoming a third world country?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=PG3xEiqVV3A
economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/gdp-per-capita.html
usafacts.org
investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/080615/6-reasons-healthcare-so-expensive-us.asp)
ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html
youtube.com/watch?v=xLyreh9ypZ0
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

because white faggots


youtube.com/watch?v=PG3xEiqVV3A

When you import the third world, you become the third world.

The best way to fight the obesity epidemic is to have fully privatized health care and make people responsible for their health, or pay massive amounts in medical expenses out of their private money. We can have fat, government dependent Americans or we can have leaner, more responsible Americans. Anything you subsidize you will get more of, that includes poor health choices.

The GDP has been growing over the last 30 years and 100% of that growth has gone to the top 1%.

Mexicans havent even touched the money yet boy. And they're being deported anyways, its a separate issue (which I support)

Way to let your fear get in the way of good policy tool.

because those countries that provide your gibsmedat healthcare have screening processes and significantly smaller populations.

Go try getting into canada with an existing condition faggot. Good fucking luck.

healthcare is a business. You can't demand service without monetary transaction.

Literally niggers and mexicans.

everyone above me is literally a nigger. Not figuratively or pejoratively, I mean literally.

56%

Little satanic jews thought a private central bank sprewing out money wouldn't get thier kind slaughtered, maybe they're right but we're at a tipping point. We will either see images of Rothschilds and jewish innards or delirium as we starve.

Just start naming the imf, federal reserve, final solution and more.
Hang them out until they all hang. Internet is our flagship.

>100% of that growth has gone to the top 1%.
In your fantasy world.

>Surely a country of 300 million, half of which don't even pay income tax, can afford to leech off the other half to give the non paying half access to "free" healthcare. Nevermind that we already have two government ran healthcare programs, both of which are shit. Surely if we just throw more money into them they'll suddenly become better.

You basically just tole me you're an idiot.

economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/gdp-per-capita.html

google median income growth America vs gdp.Do you get all your info from unsource Sup Forums jpeg's?

Obamas legacy

usafacts.org

Other countries with less money per person do better than us on a single payer system, deal with it. We need comprehensive reform and republicans are trying to just cut the whole thing and run, screwing everyone. They wont even consider it, they don't give a shit about you.

Does that bitch has a dick?

>Russian slav satellite state
>trying to stoke racism so Americans don't vote in their own interest

Not an argument against healthcare, stop trying to derail decent conversation among civilized people.

Are you from rebbit, newfriend?Also
>murrilardistan
>civilized
lel

So, what you're saying, is that it's run intelligently, so it's bad? Canadian life expectancy is 77, higher than USA. Your argument is shit bro. Its cheaper, it's better, and everyone does get healthare, it's a system that works.

You cant argue that it's broken because its way better than what we have right now.

because their massive military carries and protects the rest of the western world

Other countries have fewer people, inferior health services and also don't have the tort laws we do. I also don't have to deal with anything because you're the retard trying to get your way whereas I'm satisfied with my current insurance and have no desire to pay more money so some faggot can go to the ER with his cut finger for free. I didn't elect the republicans to give me free shit, I elected them to keep retards like you from making me have to pay for someone's free shit.

because it's being populated increasingly by third worlders

You still have not given a defense on the republicans party unwillingness to push for universal healthcare.

You basically just shit up every thread with racism for no fucking reason. There are twenty other threads full of that shit yet you come here to disrupt decent conversation like a fucking dirty slav. Get the hell off Sup Forums, your posts can't stand on their own and I think it is you who needs an account to build up a reputation on some circle jerk site. You're the one who needs help forming an argument, not me. I would contribute just as much by spamming webm's of cats doing cute shit.

Who are we protecting? And why?

How much money do you make per year?

If there healthcare is worse, why is their lefe expectancy higher?

if their healthcare is better, why do they keep coming here for serious treatment?
because our healthcare is top tier for those with access to it, and the sad fact is that most people without access only have themselves to blame for that

Are we not deporting them and closing our borders off? How would this effect healthcare reform which would take years to implement fully anyways? Wouldnt those two goals be reached concurrently? I bet we could deport mexicans at the same rate we increased healthcare. Might even be bipartisan. I'd gladly throw mexicans under the bus for some decent legislation.

...

Our healthcare is top tier because it is the most expensive and we are the economic center of this world.

Reforming healthcare coverage would not change those facts, we would still be an economic powerhouse, and our healthcare would still be the most expensive in the world (though not by as much) ensuring that the best doctors would choose to remain here. Also, keep in mind the hospitals/pharma companies make the bulk of the money (and most of their money is spent on advertising, not research) not, the Doctors, so salaries would be untouched largely. Nothing would change in terms of quality. The extra money is profit, not quality.

Still no defense or argument from you, just more insults.

GDP isn't a great indicator for wealth, especially for countries with high income inequality. GDP PPP per capita is a better metric. Making $20/hr doesn't do you much good if a big mac costs $15.

You speak the truth, being a Britbong I have paid countless thousands into an NHS I have never used, I don't even go to the doctors.
>be Britbong
>get cancer
>6 year wait list due to having to fix all Ahmed's inbreeding issues
>die

>be American
>have health insurance because I am not a retard
>get cancer
>instant treatment
>survive

honestly?

that's the spirit of America
we're good at enduring and prospering, but if anyone has taken the time to look, since we've been prospering for so long we've very much lost our way.

By returning to 3rd world country conditions three things happen
>1. The chaff dies off leaving only the strong
>2. The strong endure to prosper, building great things
>3. Those great things hurl America into the next century and permit us to lead the world.

this cycle has remained since our creation, but has been halted by liberals and faggots.
America IS the Phoenix of nations, we must burn, but then we will return, for it is the only way.

because it's confused about how to deal with its heritage. it was the land of the free when it was still largely empty and a man really could forge his own life. now it can't be, but it's also too fucking sentimental or too stupid to let that dream go.

It needs a new mythology. a new soul. because it's old soul was dreamed up for a world that's long gone.

Healthcare should not only be not free. Healthcare should be BANNED.

what did they mean by this?

Yes it would, the reason your healthcare is so good is because of the free market, as soon as the government starts subsidizing it you can bet your arse that they will start gutting it to save costs.

Never let government have more control and influence than it already has. Jesus are you even American? You seem to hate Freedom and Liberty.

Fist of all, big macs do not cost 15 dollars, you can often get 2 for five dollars, or make a mcgangbang for 2.50.

I intended income inequality to be the point of this thread. I disagree that PPP is the issue here, the issue is the massive cost of our healthcare, not the weak state of the dollar.

profit is the driver of effort which is the creator of quality you commie autist. deregulate your medical sector, allow interstate insurance and remove the guild-like system that your medicinal universities have over the entire job market of medicine

It was you who started crying about muh slavs and muh raysissm on Sup Forums you dumb nigger.

I make more than you to be sure and I know that on average that any UHC tax would be an extra $300 out of my pocket annually. US doctors have more training than most doctors around the world due to the fact that almost all doctors in the US have a specialty, i.e neurology, oncology, ect. most doctors around the world don't specialize like US doctors do. There's a variety of factors that drive up healthcare costs, but your autism about it being expensive for the sake of being expensive isn't one of them.

neither are a good metric. GDP is state-spending biased garbage that has very little relevance to actual economic discussion. PPP is an attempt to compare goods which are entirely separate in their purpose and quality and as such are not the same goods. both are highly flawed and don't take into account cultural preferences for different goods.

wait, where do you even think this income is going? how could this possibly mean anything other than a decrease in people per household and thus a measure of increased prosperity and home ownership per person. do you think that the 1% literally don't count as families or something?

ok Steve Bannon.

I hope you realize it's insane to actively destroy a country. Poor people are not going to starve off. The chaff is just going to get poor and breed even more as education declines and crime increases. Dont kid yourself, it takes a lot to kill off a population, ask Hitler, that shit is hard work and you're foolish to think you can carve out HUMANS like that. We are a slipery and persistent species.Also, he has no gameplan to rise from the ashes, very little is ever said on what policies are put in place to rise from the ashes. Gets vague real fast. Last time, what built the American middle class was regulations, investments, and breaking up robber barons and big banks.

Britain is still one the most powerful countries and they never threw in the towel. Rome lasted a thousand years. America's GDP hasn't even started to decline, it has consistently risen, this whole destructive narrative does not make sense.

not an argument, a graph and a meme. Please make sense in my thread or fuck off.

That is so patently false it's not even funny. Free market implies that consumers keep costs down, but in America, insurers keep costs hidden and Americans unwittingly collectively raise prices on their own healthcare premiums which have been growing at an alarming rate, doubling each presidential term.

Regulations are mostly absent, meaning one hospital can charge 150k for some procedure, and another across the state can charge 50k, all with no gov. regulation or consumers even being aware of it. Nothing is regulating costs, not the free market, not the gov. Nothing.

but it is an argument you autist

GDP per capita = GDP/population
GDP per family = GDP/#families
#families = population / family size
GDP per family = GDP / (population / family size)
GDP per family was meant to be 3.5x more than GDP per capita in 1960, and this fell to 2.6x more than GDP per capita by 2005, as the family size fell from 3.5 to 2.6. as such, we should expect GDP per family to be, holding GDP constant, 26% smaller than it would have otherwise been. let's take GDP per capita in 2005 (1.8) and minus 26%. we get 1.33, which removes at least 85% of the disparity that you see between median family income and gdp per capita. regardless of the figures, though, this is a priori true, so to speak - GDP per capita is simply a multiple of GDP per family, and that multiple is average family size.

you are blissfully unaware of how the market functions. if there are no regulations then how come the only people who can legally perform medical procedures on you are people who:
1) are verified by the state
2) came from an FDA approved school
3) have an FDA approved licence
4) are subject to repeat FDA approved training
5) are subject to FDA approved quotas on the number of doctors allowed to be admitted into FDA approved universities per year
6) are not allowed to work outside of FDA approved boundaries (state lines)
7) must conform to FDA approved techniques
8) must work in an FDA approved and regulated hospital

what kind of buzzphrase is "insurers keep costs hidden"? can you tell me about this?

Profit is actually a tax on the consumer as well. There are two sides.

If I make a burger for 5 dollars, and sell it to you for ten dollars, I make 5 dollars- Motivation. If I sell it for 30 dollars, I am still motivated. Has the burger quality increased?

>allow interstate insurance
How would that even work? How would a insurance agency in california give insurance to someone in new hampshire? They wouldnt even have any deals with the hospitals, how would they bargain or get customers? What is so wrong about having local insurance?

If you care about 300 dollars, we shouldnt be arguing about this, your healthcare would improve under single payer system if you make less than 250k annually.

>niggers
The majority of mestizos don't have nigger blood, ahmed. It's hard to find a nigger over here, except congolombia, RD and Haiti.

would marry fuck and kill

you're baiting me, right?
federal lawsuits exist, contracts can be made across state boundaries. local insurance lowers competition, that is all.

profit is no more of a tax on consumers than wages are a tax on CEOs. a tax is a coercive extraction of income by the state.

why do you think that the only reason that prices are low are magic state fairy dust or a conspicuous absence of "greed" on the part of "fair" corporations. if companies raise the price of their goods above that of competitors, they go out of business. attempting to sell a burger for $30 doesn't make you more profit than selling it at $10.
the prices you chose make it clear that you're probably a commiefornian

The simple answer is, because of our demographics. First world countries are predominantly white. When somebody asks me

"Why are you scared if the U.S. becomes predominantly Brown? Are you worried scout being treated differently like they are?"

I always say " Show me a majority Brown country that isn't a 3rd world shithole" Always silence. Then followed by. "You're a racist" then I say "NO, I'm a bigot, there Is a difference, and so are you!"

Then I proceed with the Redpill halting gun.

>GDP per family

Ok buddy. GDP per family has stayed stagnant for the last 50 years as our GDP went up. My point holds, get bent, you cant make the GDP go away.

i'm convinced you're baiting me but i'm willing to bite the hook nowadays since Sup Forums really is this stupid

your graphs prove literally nothing other than the fact that households now have less people and, as households get closer to a population of 1, the statistic of GDP per household will get closer to the statistic of GDP per capita, which measures GDP per a population of 1.

His point is that GDP per family is stagnant because GDP per capita is rising but the decreasing size of families cancels that out.

Here, use this graph instead.

And remember that the median will be far, far lower than the average and also more indicative of the average family.

it is LITERALLY impossible that GDP per capita would not equal GDP per household multiplied by households per capita.

you are essentially arguing that 1 =/= 1

>And remember that the median will be far, far lower than the average and also more indicative of the average family.
typical* family

Not average, obviously.

you should look up what makes the US so expensive. The reasons you listed simply dont cost that much.

#1 reason is billing costs and dealing with all the insurers (investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/080615/6-reasons-healthcare-so-expensive-us.asp)

Thats something a single payer would fix, and make America one of the cheapest and best healthcare systems in the world.

is this a measurement of median income or mean income relative to GDP per capita?

I assume it's using this.
ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html

So it's a mean, not a median, and thus likely to overestimate the size of the typical American wage due to the high income outliers dragging it up.

why do you think the administrative costs are so ridiculously high? because of all of the regulations that have to be sorted through and applied to each individual applicant. if the state can do it cheaper than the market then the state can do it without taxing people as people would prefer to use the state service. the only viable argument in favour of universal healthcare is allowing the poorest people to have access to a higher standard of healthcare than they'd be able to afford in a market scenario. government agencies will always be more inefficient.

I hope you realize that bush era free market non-regulation for the healthcare industry lead to prices increasing, not decreasing. It literally is what put obama in the whitehouse, and when he failed to fully fix healthcare, they changed parties again. This shit is no joke and people notice when their insurance keeps going up. America does have the most expensive healthcare in the world, and our life expectancy is comparatively lower than poorer nations. Those are facts. Call me a commie again. All your points are all sound and fury.

do you believe that wages have increased in the US as our GDP went up? PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION CLEARLY

it's extremely difficult to work out what the graph actually explains about the economic climate shift over time, but it's worth noting that the employment of an additional individual will, on average, keep average income the same (as unemployed and retired people are not counted) and raise GDP per capita (which distributes GDP across unemployed people, too).

i believe that this one could be explained by rising workforce participation amongst women, though whatever the remaining 10% of GDP is made up of is a little confusing to me. some measures use sales taxes and depreciation, though you'd need to hold these constant to get any viable predictive and explanatory information

i do agree that the economic scenario for us all is far less promising than in the 1960s, but I'm not sure that the statistics in that graph are too relevant at explaining such a thing. unemployment and capital growth per capita are best to look at, in my opinion

not as much as they used to, no. wages were growing far faster in the 1950s and 1960s, but so was the dollar depreciating faster. wages have been fairly stagnant since 2006.

the healthcare sector wasn't free market under bush. i don't care to shill for successive entry barrier and lobbyist fuckery in a given sector. nobody knows what the state hardware of healthcare looks like behind the scenes right now. there's too much tape and webs everywhere to call it anything other than the product of over a century of tampering and moulding to a goal

You don't get it. When you make it the governments job to do something you basically encase it in amber. Look how much innovation you've gotten from unicorn companies like Uber when it comes to basic services. Then look at the innovation that has come out of the DMV.

Too many non-whites

by what metric are we measuring wages, by the way? nominal? "real"? ability to purchase a list of things selected as "consumer goods" by a government agency? satisfaction with one's wage? amount of resources (in what metric?) that we can buy with a given wage?

asking whether "wages have gone up" is akin to asking "am i more measurements now?". it doesn't really mean much and usually "yes" and "no" can be the correct answer to the question given different interpretations of what a wage is.

>it's extremely difficult to work out what the graph actually explains about the economic climate shift over time
People are on average being paid less relative to how much the economy is producing per person.

i.e. the product of society's labour is being distributed more unequally.

This is not controversial - income inequality is on the rise in the US by whatever measure you want to use.

too much socialism

and fascism

( which is basically the same anyway )

We are not measuring the wage, we are measuring the ratio of wage-to-GDP-per-capita. The wage is given already by the National Average Wage index.

>too much socialism
>and fascism
>( which is basically the same anyway )
lol

not necessarily. mean says absolutely nothing about distribution. income equality is rising and the economy is becoming more (((rigged))), but mean income to GDP per capita says nothing about this. perhaps it says a little about the relation of total income (including that of the 1%) to total GDP, and is a metric to see how investment, depreciation, sales taxes and foreign flows have changed, but the phenomena you're observing here is complex.

you're answering for him?
in that case, you mean nominal wage to gdp, or wage in PPP per capita, or wage to gdp per capita with reference to what consumers can buy with this wage? these are all important

this

lol

Money has nothing to do with it. Import third world problems. They don't magically go away. Degeneracy doesn't fade when you enter a high GDP country.

>tell you to answer clearly
>now is the time to get metaphysical and start an ontological debate on what things are

I think you're trying very hard to hide from a basic truth.

>Why you support republicans they dont want to give you free shit.

>mean says absolutely nothing about distribution
Wrong. GDP per capita is inherently a distributive measure. The measurement of GDP per capita is a measure of how much each person would get if the GDP were distributed equally over everyone.

If the mean national average wage is lower then GDP per capita then most people are getting less than an equitable distribution. If it is higher then most people are getting more than an equitable distribution (which is possible because, as you pointed out, women aren't working as much). Like you say, national average wage only accounts for those working whereas GDP accounts for all - so national average wage should always be higher than GDP per capita by a fairly significant amount under equitable distribution.

>you're answering for him?
For some reason I thought that reply was for me. I apologise.

As you can see, I am so tired I'm starting to see things, so I'm heading off to bed. Goodnight.

do you think America is a poor country that cannot afford things and desperately needs to give tax breaks to billionaires?

this
/thread

Universal healthcare doesn't work anywhere it's implemented. We have it in Canada and it basically wastes a lot of tax dollars on people who shouldn't be allowed in hospitals.

Here's a bit of Truth about universal healthcare from my nigga Dr Thomas Sowell

youtube.com/watch?v=xLyreh9ypZ0

In case you didn't watch it, here's a sum up:
>Healthcare is expensive, and the only way to lower costs is through private market trade offs over time
>If you make healthcare universal you waste massive amounts of resources trying to make an expensive thing available to everyone, which means it's quality will go down
>You're better off with a private system and having insurance because the healthcare will be high quality and continue to improve and lower in cost over time, otherwise you get a 'universal' system that makes everyone poorer to pay for it will providing a terrible service

stop measuring things by household, it means fucking nothing. i know that there is more income inequality now, but stop using households as a unit to compare income disparities. this is all i ask. i'm not even trying to defend any economic political stance here, i'm just asking that you use good metrics to discuss phenomena. at the very least show a graph of individual income by income percentile category

I guess that happens when you outsource everything, only the people in charge benefit from it.
Imagine how much the income would rise if companies didn't outsource and offshore, but alas you can't outbid slavery.

I think trying to vote money into your own pocket is stupid. However on the subject of universal healthcare I think until you get the obesity epidemic under control you will just be wasting money anyways. I work at a food bank and some fat illegal Mexican bitch came in asking for food. She had her son translate for her. We gave her the number of an organization that distributes to individual families. This is the kind of thing that needs to be dealt with. Absolute trash that needs to be physically removed from the country.

by distribution i meant variance.

average wage being slightly lower than GDP per capita actually points to a more equal distribution of income than average wage being way above GDP per capita. this is misleading, as income disparities are definitely higher now, but think of the following:

america has one man working and a population of 500. the man earns $100,000 a year. the average wage is $100,000, but GDP per capita is $200.

america has 400 men working and a population of 500. the average wage is $250, and so total GDP is $100,000 (same as before), and so is GDP per capita. average wage is far lower as a ratio of itself to gdp per capita, though. would you not say that this is a more equitable distribution?

Dude, Just visit Russia.

people who work outsources jobs aren't slaves. the reason why jobs are outsourced is because hiring an american worker has too many administrative, tax-based, insurance-based and risk-based costs to be at all competitive with the other areas of the world which would otherwise have a lower productivity.

>US doctors have more training than most doctors around the world
Aren't the US doctors known for not being able to do anything right after med school because they have like zero practical training?

>almost all doctors in the US have a specialty, i.e neurology, oncology, ect. most doctors around the world don't specialize like US doctors do
Any source for that claim? Sounds really weird desu. Every doctor in Finland specializes, it's usually 6 years for MD and 6 years of specializing.

They think people will choose to become cardiothoracic surgeons for 150k lol.

Would it help to cut down on regulations and needless burocracy?
What has happened to the time when a guy used to work at a single company all his life? And how come there is a risk factor? Why would a satisfied employee leave?

Because we are importing third world people we'll eventually become Brazil if this doesn't stop

What do you think medical school is for? To not learn how to do anything? To not have clinicals to learn anything?

For specialties here it is bachelors, 4 years of medical school, 3-4 years of residency, 3 years of fellowship. Then you get to practice on your own.

Based on experience, not personal fortunately, people are usually directed to the US if all else fails. The US has the best healthcare in the world, but as previously stated is mighty expensive.

Those countries have regressive tax plans. Poor people actually pay for their shit. No one ever wants to talk about that though.

In the US, medschool is a scam to keep the number of doctors very low.... so that they can keep getting high paychecks.

Medical industry is over regulated in every aspect.

If you want cheap medical care, deregulate the medical industry.

It'll never happen though... too many people stand to benefity.

if something is needless then it's presupposed that we ought to remove it, yes. regardless, i'm in favour of removing all of the state restraints upon business ownership and practice

generally people have higher job turnover now because industry skill requirements may be more turbulent and because regulations are constantly added which make it more profitable to just use more capital instead
in most countries, hiring a worker is a huge risk because it's fairly difficult to fire them. you need to jump through loads of hoops and can prepare for a legal battle. you must also pay a fraction of their taxes, pay for insurance for them, pay into a pension for them, regardless of if they want this. also, state mandated maternity leave and vacation pay drives costs up hugely, and all this anti-discrimination bullshit means you have to plan extremely carefully when hiring in order to avoid a lawsuit smackdown.

Did you miss the part about him saying smaller population? And compared to the states, Canada actually enforces their fucking immigration laws. USA is playing catch up now.