Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

The bad of your country.

Posted Sep 3, '12 at 9:35am

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,298 posts

Knight

Not particularly, no. Only those covered by state medicare (at least before this universal healthcare crap) would have detracted from the system, and even then only minimally. The cost is more likely than not in preventative ad campaigns, not in the healthcare itself, as this is covered by insurance in most cases, or for the other sixth hardly at all.


52 million Americans are not covered by insurance, and rely on the government for healthcare.


Time, money and energy spent treating patients with health conditions that are exacerbated by their poor diets affects the efficiency, availability and cost of medical care. Medical News Today argues that the illnesses resulting from obesity due to poor dieting often force people to take days off from work, stop working, or go on disability. Decreased productivity negatively affects the economy and the standard of living. When individuals use sick time and do not go to work, the level of productivity of the workforce decreases and business revenue decreases.

The medical care costs of obesity in the United States are staggering. In 2008 dollars, these costs totaled about $147 billion according to Health Affairs. The government doesn't exactly care if you get diabetes or are obese; it cares when it affects society as a whole.

Mexico is a tragic example. Not too long ago, diabetes was rarely seen in Mexico, with the explosion of fast food restaurant chains, the Mexican health system is struggling. It issued a statement in 2009:

âObesity-related illnesses are now so widespread that they are beginning to place a severe strain on the health system: the treatment of type 2 diabetes alone consumes more than one-third of the entire social security budget. Estimates suggest that within five years it will account for two-thirds.â

The Bottom line is, we care not about social marginal benefits and costs of our actions, we care only about our own private marginal benefits and costs. This leads to deadweight loss for society, and allocative inefficiency.

As for drugs, I thought you were mentioning more than just pot, but all kinds of drugs. Yes, marijuana doesn't kill. But the government doesn't care whether you died from pot smoking, it cares about the costs to society.

One major justification for legalization remains tempting: the money. Unfortunately, however, the financial costs of marijuana legalization would never outweigh its benefits. Yes, the marijuana market seems like an attractive target for taxation -- Abt Associates, a research firm, estimates that the industry is worth roughly $10 billion a year -- and California could certainly use a chunk of that cash to offset its budget woes in the current economic climate.

What is rarely discussed, however, is that the likely increase in marijuana prevalence resulting from legalization would probably increase the already high costs of marijuana use in society. Accidents would increase, healthcare costs would rise and productivity would suffer. Legal alcohol serves as a good example: The $8 billion in tax revenue generated from that widely used drug does little to offset the nearly $200 billion in social costs attributed to its use.
 

Posted Sep 3, '12 at 11:14am

partydevil

partydevil

5,130 posts

thx nicho, i wouldn't be able to stay calm whit such american.
your hitting my mark perfectly =)

 

Posted Sep 3, '12 at 11:40am

314d1

314d1

3,962 posts

My country? Its a great place. The people are nice and helpful, the land is pretty, and there is plenty of room for everybody.

The flaws that I have noticed are mostly in the world I live in, the world of the youth, and mostly minor problems. Drug use is rampant, mostly "minor" drugs like alcohol, marijuana, and "normal" smoking, to the point where there is a group of at least ten teenagers smoking in the parking lot after school (Not technically school grounds, of course.) There are also minor spouts of violence, both randomly and semi-organized. I have seen several fights, been part of a few, but they are usually just a few punches before someone is restrained and no one has been actually injured in one. While there is semi-organized fighting, from what I hear of it it is mostly friendly fighting, where no one is injured. Crime is low, it is mostly morons doing stupid things. I know two people who have committed armed robbery in high school, both where caught easily. One robbed a liquor store, so I am told, and he was a volunteer fireman and an acquaintance of mine from boyscouts, and I am not sure if he was armed or not. From what I hear he was caught walking down the street drinking the liquor. The other robbed a gas station with a black-painted air soft gun (At least he wore a mask. A scream mask) and was caught easily. Both of those people where pretty nice guys, and I knew them a little bit, one was a former boy scout in my troop and the other had a locker two lockers down from me. The only way anyone knew about the first was asking (Hey, what happened to that guy?) and everyone is surprised when they hear it, the other was a rumor around school when it happened. The girls all thought "Really? I thought he was too nice for that" while the boys thought "Really? I didn't think he had the balls for it.". Both assume that both where probably on drugs.

But really, I love it here. The only problems I can name have never effected me, the only crimes we have in Montana are usually under the effects of alcohol, and the land is great. I have not been to the rest of America in a while, but I assume the rest is similar in a ton of ways?

 

Posted Sep 3, '12 at 11:45am

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,298 posts

Knight

But really, I love it here. The only problems I can name have never effected me, the only crimes we have in Montana are usually under the effects of alcohol, and the land is great. I have not been to the rest of America in a while, but I assume the rest is similar in a ton of ways?


Not in the ghettos no.
 

Posted Sep 3, '12 at 11:53am

314d1

314d1

3,962 posts

Not in the ghettos no.


You may not realize this, but "Everywhere that is not a ghetto" is a pretty big place, so I would say we are doing pretty good. I don't think we even have ghettos in Montana, not since WWII, and those where "Interment Camps" where we kept Italians who ended up liking it so much here many of them stayed. I am not sure that counts, though.
 

Posted Sep 3, '12 at 12:30pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,298 posts

Knight

Not in the ghettos no.

You may not realize this, but "Everywhere that is not a ghetto" is a pretty big place, so I would say we are doing pretty good. I don't think we even have ghettos in Montana, not since WWII, and those where "Interment Camps" where we kept Italians who ended up liking it so much here many of them stayed. I am not sure that counts, though.


You might not recall your phrasing of "the rest" being extremely absolute.
 

Posted Sep 3, '12 at 12:34pm

314d1

314d1

3,962 posts

You might not recall your phrasing of "the rest" being extremely absolute.


It is rather had to make a large generalization, especially when we are not only talking about countries and states, but apparently cities, and not just cities but small parts of cities. Excuse me for not taking a little bit of a little bit of a little bit into account.
 

Posted Sep 3, '12 at 12:45pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,298 posts

Knight

It is rather had to make a large generalization, especially when we are not only talking about countries and states, but apparently cities, and not just cities but small parts of cities. Excuse me for not taking a little bit of a little bit of a little bit into account.


Traditional black inner-city ghettos are thinning out and changing, drawing in impoverished Hispanic people, who have low-wage jobs or are unemployed. Neighborhoods with poverty rates of at least 40% are stretching over broader areas, increasing in suburbs at twice the rate of cities.

After declining during the 1990s economic boom, the proportion of poor people in large metropolitan areas who lived in high-poverty neighborhoods jumped from 11.2% in 2000 to 15.1% last year, according to a Brookings Institution analysis released Thursday. Such geographically concentrated poverty in the US is now at the highest since 1990, following a decade of high unemployment and rising energy costs.

Extreme poverty today continues to be prevalent in the industrial midwest, including Michigan cities Detroit and Grand Rapids, and Akron, Ohio, because of a renewed decline in manufacturing. But the biggest growth in high-poverty areas is occurring in newer Sun Belt metro areas such as Las Vegas, Riverside, California, and Cape Coral, Florida, after the plummeting housing market wiped out home values and dried up construction jobs.

7% of African Americans live in ghettos today and it's not counting other races. It's not a tiny tiny group as you put it.
 

Posted Sep 3, '12 at 12:54pm

314d1

314d1

3,962 posts

It's not a tiny tiny group as you put it.


Yeah, it really is.

12.6% (39,600,414 people) Of America is black. If 7% live in ghettos, that makes 2,772,028.98 people. Excuse me if I am ignoring an extremely small part of the country while making generalizations.
 

Posted Sep 3, '12 at 12:58pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,298 posts

Knight

Yeah, it really is.

12.6% (39,600,414 people) Of America is black. If 7% live in ghettos, that makes 2,772,028.98 people. Excuse me if I am ignoring an extremely small part of the country while making generalizations.


2 million is not "tiny" it's the population of many countries. Not to mention that this is just one race, and that ghetto population is on the rise.
 
Reply to The bad of your country.

You must be logged in to post a reply!