Privately owned guns save more lives than they take

[Al B. Sure!]

It does make us poorer because it means our insurance pool is smaller so the per person costs are much higher. Also, unless its an immediate life threatening condition (as in you'll drop dead outside the doors) it does mean you lack access to health care. Emergency rooms can toss you out if you're not going to die immediately so you got a lot of people with chronic diseases which will end up killing them, like cancer or dozens of others, but since they're not in immediate danger of dying that minute they can't get care in emergency rooms. They will still die rather horribly without treatment though, treatment which costs more than the net worth of most Americans, and treatment they can't get. That's just morally wrong especially since there is a better & cheaper alternative used in every other industrialized country in the world.

Where is Medicaid at?

Are you just asking for more entitlements for the middle class?

[Hauldren Collider]

Reg is right, the idea that people would give up crime simply because we give them handouts is absurd. People don't generally commit crimes because they are poor here. It's just highly correlated.

[regexcellent]

Yes, middle class entitlements will solve our problems with suburban soccer moms' drive by shootings.

[C0ckney]

But it's all moot because the idea that welfare would solve crime is preposterous.

what is preposterous?

1) poverty is a major cause of crime.
2) an effective social welfare system reduces poverty.

do you disgaree with either of these propositions?

[regexcellent]

Yes, the second one in particular.

[C0ckney]

you seriously think that social welfare does reduce and has not reduced poverty?

[regexcellent]

No, I think social welfare has not reduced poverty. At best it might be said to reduce disparity in wealth, primarily by reducing the affluence of the wealthy as opposed to improving the situation for the poor.

[Jon Miller]

It is my opinion that we have the best healthcare and tertiary education systems in the world, not the worst.

Anyway, getting health insurance for gang members is not going to make them give up crime.

We have one of the worse.

The UK (and Sweden) tertiary systems are much more efficient for $ spent.

BTW, you go against modern science with your baseless opinions about peoples behavior.

http://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/213spears.pdf

http://www.haaretz.com/business/the-psychological-poverty-trap-1.414260

http://mtbi.asu.edu/downloads/Document8.pdf

Opinion (but based on interviews, and not just your 'feel'):

http://www.salon.com/2011/08/09/america_crime_poverty/

JM

[regexcellent]

American universities are better than the ones in Britain and Sweden. I'm not terribly concerned about the money I'm spending because I can be fairly confident that my technical degree in computing will pay for itself. Also, our education would be much more efficient if it weren't for government subsidies and loans.

[kentonio]

Reg is right, the idea that people would give up crime simply because we give them handouts is absurd. People don't generally commit crimes because they are poor here. It's just highly correlated.

No, I think social welfare has not reduced poverty. At best it might be said to reduce disparity in wealth, primarily by reducing the affluence of the wealthy as opposed to improving the situation for the poor.

Go take a look at a country like Norway or Sweden and then please explain why they have big safety nets, high standards of employment protection and standards of living and very little crime. It's all part of the same thing. You ensure that all your citizens are able to live comfortable, safe lives, and they end up not commiting crimes for small rewards. They also are able to aspire to higher things which fuels social mobility.

[kentonio]

American universities are better than the ones in Britain and Sweden.

Which universities? The Ivy league ones or the average? According to this site Cambridge is the best university in the world.

[Hauldren Collider]

American universities are better than the ones in Britain and Sweden. I'm not terribly concerned about the money I'm spending because I can be fairly confident that my technical degree in computing will pay for itself. Also, our education would be much more efficient if it weren't for government subsidies and loans.

Well, there are some really good ones in Britain, like Cambridge and Oxford and University College London, just not nearly as many as in the US.

EDIT: Is it University College or Imperial College that's really good, or is it both?

[Hauldren Collider]

[QUOTE=kentonio;6101331][QUOTE=regexcellent;6101329]American universities are better than the ones in Britain and Sweden.

Which universities? The Ivy league ones or the average? According to this site Cambridge is the best university in the world.

You have like five really good universities, the US has a hundred or more.

[Al B. Sure!]

what is preposterous?

1) poverty is a major cause of crime.
2) an effective social welfare system reduces poverty.

do you disgaree with either of these propositions?

Umm... you know we have Medicaid, right?

Everyone from the hood has Medicaid.

We already give free healthcare to our poor.

[Jon Miller]

American universities are better than the ones in Britain and Sweden. I'm not terribly concerned about the money I'm spending because I can be fairly confident that my technical degree in computing will pay for itself. Also, our education would be much more efficient if it weren't for government subsidies and loans.

It is worse per dollar spent/population. They do better for their population than we do.

JM