You can......

You can argue the political response or the citizens response but in terms of Dr’s, Nurses, Beds, Equipment, technology, .... my statement stands and is 100% accurate.

No it isn't.

Other countries were way ahead of the US (and the UK) by any measure.
 
Turns out those mooslams might have been onto something with that whole face covering deal.
 
That being said I am always take international comparisons with a grain of salt. To often it is not apples to apples.

IE:
what the US reports as “violent crime” is not what the U.K. reports as violent crime.

The US reports infant mortality from live birth.
Many other countries do not consider it a live birth till after 24hrs or up
ten 10 days.
( a life insurance trick as the chances of death reduce dramatically after 3 days)

Most countries report all resources to include military. We exclude military resources. The medical capabilities and resources of our military improve the gap in all categories.
 
Last edited:
You can bitch and whine that we should have nationalized health care.

Or you can bitch and wine about us not having enough beds/ventilators/masks/health care workers.

But you can not bitch about both.


Because that fact is we are the most prepared country in the world ( it’s not even close) and it is because we do have a private healthcare system. If you argue for nationalized healthcare you are also arguing for reducing our ability to respond to pandemics dramatically.

Yes you can.
Socialized countries are notorious for not being able to deliver
on any promise other than the promise to be fully in control of you.
 
Yes you can.
Socialized countries are notorious for not being able to deliver
on any promise other than the promise to be fully in control of you.

OK - So the US is biggest and best at everything, even when it will record the highest Covid-19 deaths in the world..

Despite facts that dispute the US's pre-eminence.
 
Didn't say that.
Just pointed out where the aggregate of essential evidentiary evidence lies...

Look at how well China has managed the outbreak,
all you have to do is listen to them crow, but then
having owned roosters, they crow into the evening too.
 
Didn't say that.
Just pointed out where the aggregate of essential evidentiary evidence lies...

Look at how well China has managed the outbreak,
all you have to do is listen to them crow, but then
having owned roosters, they crow into the evening too.

And their government lies to the world and their own people. Sound familiar?
 
Tell me, after having dabbed in it,
why did the UK roll back its
Socialist experiments?
 
Tell me, after having dabbed in it,
why did the UK roll back its
Socialist experiments?

The 1945 election returned a Labour Government, mostly on the military vote who were fed up with the broken promises of fair treatment for those returning from the First World War - their fathers.

That government enacted the start of the National Health Service, the Welfare state and nationalisation of the rail and coal industries. We couldn't really afford it because of the debt owed to America for Lend/Lease.

Subsequent Conservative governments reduced the debt and the scope of the welfare state but the NHS is supported by all political parties and any party suggesting ending it would be unelectable. Mrs Thatcher's periods as Prime Minister changed the attitude to government handouts in favour of individual self-improvement - which worked until the 2008 financial crisis, not of the UK's making.

Until Jeremy Corbyn became the leader of the Labour Party, there had been a consensus that the country should live broadly within its means. Corbyn, and Labour's, recent electoral policy was that there should be a massive increase in government spending which the electorate seemed to decide was financial madness and impractical. If Corbyn had been elected, the government would not have had the ability to .provide the finance to mitigate the impact of Covid-19 because a Labour government would have spent everything.
 
Thanks, but it was a rhetorical point.

It might have been, but attacking 'socialist' governments is a favourite ploy by many US posters who cannot understand that we value some aspects of government-run services, and we do not share the US mistrust of governments.

The 'socialist' things we have in European countries are by popular choice of our electorates, and we know we pay for them by taxation - even if many Americans cannot understand that we do not see all government initiatives as evil.
 
It is not an attack to say that they are never the models
of efficiency that their advocates believe they will be.
It is just a statement of empirically-proven truth.
It has never been the panacea promised...
 
It is not an attack to say that they are never the models
of efficiency that their advocates believe they will be.
It is just a statement of empirically-proven truth.
It has never been the panacea promised...

It is not as bad as you suggest. In the UK, for decades we have had a dedicated Civil Service who works FOR the people, not for themselves. Unlike US federal employees they are not exempt from being made redundant or just fired.
 
It is that bad.
We have instituted a lot of the same sort of soft socialism as you have.

And yet, the cry and hue from those who always want a little more Socialism
is that the government was slow to react/act...

Well, DUH!!!

It's no longer a sexy Italian/German sports car,
It's a bullet-proof Cadillac that gets two miles to the gallon...


DOWNHILL!​
 
Last edited:
The US has quite a few very large well-run government operations, notwithstanding the almost constant disparagement by the right wingers and self proclaimed libertarians.
 
It is that bad.
We have instituted a lot of the same sort of soft socialism as you have.

And yet, the cry and hue from those who always want a little more Socialism
is that the government was slow to react/act...

Well, DUH!!!

It's no longer a sexy Italian/German sports car,
It's a bullet-proof Cadillac that gets two miles to the gallon...


DOWNHILL!​

The UK has rolled back the government substantially.

For example: From the 19th century until 1969 the Post Office (and telephones) were a civil service department. That year they were changed to two nationalised industries. That cut the UK's Civil Service staff levels by 50%.

Later both Royal Mail and British Telecom became commercial enterprises with shareholders.

In 1947 The railways were nationalised as British Rail. The railways are now run by commercial franchises but they have not been an unqualified success. Some railways might have to be taken back into state control because they are not efficient or profitable at the moment (before Covid-19).

But the Civil Service is much smaller than it was even after the Post Office left. Many of its previous functions are now privatised.
 
I've already studied Wicksteed...

For every one of me, there are 100 Social Justice Warriors
who just want to control government for the good of the one of me.
 
Back
Top