The Human Development Index (HDI) represents the average of the following three indices:

* Life Expectancy Index = \frac{LE - 25} {85 - 25}
* Education Index = \frac{2} {3} * ALI + \frac{1} {3} * GEI
o Adult Literacy Index (ALI) = \frac{ALR - 0} {100 - 0}
o Gross Enrolment Index (GEI) = \frac{CGER - 0} {100 - 0}
* GDP Index = \frac{log(GDPpc) - log(100)} {log(40000) - log(100)}

Anyone care to guess where the US is in this index?

10th

And guess which country is 2nd... you'll never guess....

Iceland?!?

Thicket...
Canada is #5

#1 country is....
Norway

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Human_Development_Index

#1 country is....
Norway

'course it is :)

Goes to show you the value of having a mono-cultural homogenous society which is geographically isolated from the rest of the world but sitting on one of the worlds largest oil fields.

But I wonder, does the normal division of humans(racism) break into merely different shades of blonde when it gets that homogenous(as in Norway)? Or does the opposite occur, a large group familialization?

Are you trying to blame the US's position on that list due to having people with dark skin in our population, Fyyr?

You are funny, Pan.

/smile

I think their success is due to the amount of fish they eat.

But I wonder, does the normal division of humans(racism) break into merely different shades of blonde when it gets that homogenous(as in Norway)?

Heh, showing off your infinite knowledge again, yah?

I think their success is due to the amount of fish they eat.I know you probably meant that as a joke, but in actuality there are studies that give much weight to the fact that fish consumption (especially those high in omega3 oils such as cold water fish) can help stave off an assortment of dimentias and Alzheimer's. Dimentias affect the brain's thought processes and communication skills, but they also affect the brain's ability to deal with things like eating, hygiene and even the ability to "remember" to breathe.

Yeah, I was sort of making a left hand reference to the good things in fish.

That "remember to breath" thing is really interesting. I was reading that apparently there's a relatively small number of cells that control your breathing. They think that people who "die in their sleep" have lost the last of the brain cells that control that breathing mechanism. They said it wasn't really a very peaceful way to die, despite our belief that it is.

*gulps down another handful of fish oil capsules and burps fishy breath*

Man, I got my Mom taking fish oil and also turmeric too.

psst, pan, we dont eat the fish, we sell it *point bnp* :P

They eat the poor reindeer!

I bet even the reindeer are rich in Norway.

psst, pan, we dont eat the fish, we sell it *point bnp* :P
Durr.... bnp? Bass National Product?

Heh, showing off your infinite knowledge again, yah?

Asking a question shows off knowledge?

Strange that you read it that way.



In all actuallity, just for informational purposes, I am in the process of forming a new opinion of universal healthcare. One of my biggest objections to universal healthcare is that people who do not earn it(produce) will receive it. But last year, I was struck with the idea that only very rarely do the recipients of insured or government healthcare today actually pay for what they get. It is the purpose of insurance itself to cover you for more than you expected, and paid for, or are willing to pay for. That is to say, that only upon the most rarest of circumstances will the amount a recipient gets will get what they have paid into the existing system.

So that leaves the conclusion that there are many who pay into the system and never get anything out of it, like Aidon has said he does. Or that there are plenty of people who never pay their share, and hog up all the resources, already. Both of those are the largest logical objections to universal healthcare, but we already live with them with the current system.

So that leaves one with much minor objections to universal healthcare to deal with. Ones that the Norwegians have obviously overcome. And I want to know how they did it. I can tell you that inherent racism in our culture is one very very strong objection to universal healthcare, it is going to be an unspoken one of course. But it still has to be accounted for.

The resources of Norway, oil, is divvied up very much like the oil profits are in Alaska. In Alaska, every resident gets a 2000 dollar check in the mail at the end of each year. Sort of like a statewide profit shareing plan. If any resource should be nationalized, it should be oil. Norways splits are much larger, but spread out through nationalized socialist programs. Additionally, it does not matter if the residents ancestors have been there for a 1000 generations or 1, you still get the oil check. There is animosity, ongoing racism, in the locals of Alaska about how the money is split, and how it is spent.

There are other problems with nationalized(not universal) healthcare. Valid problems. The DMVing of healthcare(which to a certain extent HMOs are already doing in the free market). And substandard service....Amputeeing broken legs because it makes better financial sense to do so like the Danes do. How would you build such a system without bureaucrats?

So the question remains, how do you justify providing a triple bypass to someone who has never been productive in their lives, that is to say, have not contributed a fraction of the cost of such an operation? An operations which could amount to more than that individual produced total in their lives. When there are limited amount of the procedures which can be performed, and how would you justify not allotting such an operation to someone who has been productive all their years? Those questions will inevitably fall onto racial lines, and so, how are those objections dealt with on a rational logical fashion(if they even are)?

Norway is matter of fact about it, their's is the notion that the oil, and the profits from its sales, belongs to each and every one of its blonde haired blue eyed citizens(to one degree or another). We don't have any resource which we view that way. So how would we deal with that issue as well, in order to get universal healthcare.

Asking a question shows off knowledge?

If you were pretending to be uneducated in your implication of homogenous shades-of-blonde society, then please accept my apologies. If not, I refer you to my previous comment.

So that leaves one with much minor objections to universal healthcare to deal with. Ones that the Norwegians have obviously overcome. And I want to know how they did it.

We believe that the measure of a nation's greatness lies in how it treats it's weakest. Simple as that. Life and health > money.

So that leaves one with much minor objections to universal healthcare to deal with. Ones that the Norwegians have obviously overcome. And I want to know how they did it.Higher taxes + a small, homogenous country + less spending on other stuff (e.g., military).

The U.S. could do it, but setting up an efficient system for such a large (in terms of geography and population) and diverse (in terms of race, income disparity, and lifestyles) is so much harder.

Canada seems to have done it, Australia too. Not exactly small countries.

Canada seems to have done it, Australia too. Not exactly small countries.

I am checking the PBS from Australia.
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/Publishing.nsf/Content/health-pbs-general-schedule-schedpdf.htm
Link to 4M PDF directly. (http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/health-pbs-general-schedule-schedpdf.htm/$FILE/pbscheduleaug05.pdf)
There a whole lot of drugs there that need a bureaucrat's authority to approve.

A lot of those drugs our physicians just prescribe.


Do you really want some obese DMV lady telling you that you can have Zyprexa or Abilify or not? Instead of your doctor? They are restricted.

Or what if your doctor thinks that Estrogen implants are good for you. Do you want a bureacrat to overide her? They are restricted.

Actos is not even covered. Sucks to be you, if you are Diabetic and Australian. Avandia too.

If you child has Turners, or other dwarfism, good luck with growth hormones. Out.

You have all heard me talk about Vancomycin. It is restricted.

And I just got started looking at the sheet.

I am just not ready for that yet. And I don't even have health insurance.

There a whole lot of drugs there that need a bureaucrat's authority to approve.

A lot of those drugs our physicians just prescribe.

Do you really want some obese DMV lady telling you that you can have Zyprexa or Abilify or not? Instead of your doctor? They are restricted.

It can be done without doing -exactly- this little bit. We don't have that, for example.

It can be done without doing -exactly- this little bit. We don't have that, for example.

Your government will actually pay for drugs your doctor prescribes? The drugs that you need?

And you get them when you need them?



Your system is worth looking much closer at.

Your government will actually pay for drugs your doctor prescribes? The drugs that you need?

Some, yes. Not all. No clue what the criteria are (luckily), but it's like you pay for your flu-antibiotica yourself, govt pays for your chemo. (Plus some special arrangements for low-income people) Oh, and if what medicine you need falls in the "you pay this yourself"-category, but exceeds a certain amount/year (I think if the sum of doctor apointments and medicine you've paid for is above around $500) you can deduct cost off your taxes.

And you get them when you need them?

Well, it's not perfect. There are waiting lists of up to 6months for some non-life threatening hospital treatment. (And if you don't like that, and can afford it, there are private options to waiting) Anything a regular doctor can fix I've never heard of taking more than a day or two to get handled, and obviously - the second you're there with a prescription in hand, the chemist will give the medicine to you. If I were to compare with the rest of the world, I'd say we're doing pretty darn well.

But no, it doesn't come cheap, and God, I love brackets () () ()

I am checking the PBS from Australia.
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/Publishing.nsf/Content/health-pbs-general-schedule-schedpdf.htm
Link to 4M PDF directly. (http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/health-pbs-general-schedule-schedpdf.htm/$FILE/pbscheduleaug05.pdf)
There a whole lot of drugs there that need a bureaucrat's authority to approve.

A lot of those drugs our physicians just prescribe.


Do you really want some obese DMV lady telling you that you can have Zyprexa or Abilify or not? Instead of your doctor? They are restricted.

Or what if your doctor thinks that Estrogen implants are good for you. Do you want a bureacrat to overide her? They are restricted.

Actos is not even covered. Sucks to be you, if you are Diabetic and Australian. Avandia too.

If you child has Turners, or other dwarfism, good luck with growth hormones. Out.

You have all heard me talk about Vancomycin. It is restricted.

And I just got started looking at the sheet.

I am just not ready for that yet. And I don't even have health insurance.


We already have it, as I said. Its just under private industry in the form of HMO's. Personally I don't like the idea of private citizens getting wealthier directly as a result of withholding care from people.

We already have it, as I said. Its just under private industry in the form of HMO's. Personally I don't like the idea of private citizens getting wealthier directly as a result of withholding care from people.

I am beginning to agree. I think I even mentioned that above.

Combine that with EMTALA.



Like I said(did I say that in this thread or another), my opinion of Universal Heathcare is beginning to change.

I just still need to work on it a bit more before I make up my mind. The "every sperm is sacred, and we need to protect them all because we are just nice people and like everybody" argument is NEVER going to work on me. It has to strike me logically.

And logically, it is starting to make sense. And I am sure that it was you Aidon who said something, I think a year ago or so, which started me down this thought process. Now that I think about it,,, Ya, it was in that "Fyyr Hates Pharmacists" thread a whiles back.

I just still need to work on it a bit more before I make up my mind. The "every sperm is sacred, and we need to protect them all because we are just nice people and like everybody" argument is NEVER going to work on me. It has to strike me logically.

Try this on for size, logically:

Personally, I feel it's a paradox that it's not the responsibility of the community to ensure a decent level of healthcare for everyone, but it IS the responsibility of the community to pay for bloody ROADS for everybody? As if roads are more vital and therefore are entitled to special protection and funding? More vital than health and life?

And it's not because we're so "nice", it's cause they're citizens. They have rights, end of story.

Mostly unrelated to the thread, but just had to say... I saw this and the one below it, and thought the title read:

"Human Torture Index"

Hmm...

Determining what those rights are, is an important discussion.

Do you have a right to all drugs, and have the government pay for them?

If not, which ones are you entitled to?

And which ones are you not entitled to?

I want to take testosterone(steroids), should the government pay for me to use it? Do I have a right to it? If not, why not? If I have a right to it, what argument can you form to prevent me from getting it?

And if you can formulate a reason to prevent me from getting testosterone for my own purpose(sexual attraction), could I not use the same argument against you if you want estrogen or progesterone(ie birth control pills) for your own purposes(preventing babies).

Your 'nuff said' 'end of story' conclusions are just where I normally start, not end.

Governments build roads because it is in THEIR best interest to do so. How can the same argument be made for medical treatment and pharmaceuticals? That is what I am after.

The US has the EMTALA, which essentially says that anyone who comes into a hospital with an emergency room(trauma room) must be treated. Regardless of ability to pay. It is the law already, Federal Law. But emergency room healthcare is close to the most expensive care there is, it definately is not economically sound treating your homeless, indigent, poor, and uninsured people with the most expensive healthcare there is. The government ends up picking up the tab for these folks. There has to be a better way.

Determining what those rights are, is an important discussion.

I agree, and my point was that I'd think that in figuring that out, one would start at the very basics, and then build on that until at some point one agrees "ok this is enough, we've covered the very basics and then some, so let's stop here". So with that in mind, it seems paradoxal that one would decide that roads are more protection-worthy than life and health.

EDIT: that said, I do see the point that one could make - that the best way to protect the rights of the citizens is to leave the government out of anything that it technically CAN be left out of. I see the point, I just don't agree with it, and without being patronizing, when you look at how well it works in relation to health care, it seems to be like communism - the idea works well on paper, sucks in practice.

Mostly unrelated to the thread, but just had to say... I saw this and the one below it, and thought the title read:

"Human Torture Index"

Hmm...

LOL! I do that all the time, sometimes even with things I posted. I'm daffy.

The health care thing is tricky. While I think everyone should be able to get a certain level of health care, I think some things shouldn't be provided unless they're medically necessary. I'd probably cover birth control, but not sexual dysfunction medication.

I'd like to see a certain level of universal health care, but I'd also like to be able to pay extra and get special health care, if I wanted it. For instance, I went outside my HMO to get some hormonal tweaking done. Jinjre has some kind of doctor's group in her area that does something interesting, for an additional fee they seem to make themselves a lot more accessible.

Canada seems to have done it, Australia too. Not exactly small countries.

Canada has roughly 33 million people. Australia 20 million people. California 34 million people. Big land mass, relatively small populations. Fance has a higher population of Australia and Canada combined.

LOL! I do that all the time, sometimes even with things I posted. I'm daffy.

The health care thing is tricky. While I think everyone should be able to get a certain level of health care, I think some things shouldn't be provided unless they're medically necessary. I'd probably cover birth control, but not sexual dysfunction medication.

Why not? Its ok to ensure women can go do the (sometimes) horizontal tango but not men?

Horizontal tango has a new meaning for me, but...

Well, if we're looking at costs and benefits, having children is costly on many different levels. Preventing their conception is quite conceivably (sic) going to save money on many levels. While treating ED doesn't have that sort of cost/benefit trade off. What I would do, if I were Queen, would be to provide a Free Penis Pump to any man who wanted one for his ED issues. If it was good enough for my Dad, its good enough for basic healthcare. (Yes, unfortunately my Father shared that bit of information with me... *sigh*)

While orgasms are nice from the standpoint of human happiness, I don't think the lack thereof is a good priority for national healthcare benefits. Otherwise, we gotta pay for all the treatment for non-orgasmic women, and there's a lot of them out there.

Then again... if we treated this as a national healthcare crisis perhaps we'd shoot to the top of the HDI. :p

For all democratic countries such as the U.S., Canada, Australia, France and Norway it's the will of the people that drive the priorities of the government. In Canada, health care has been the biggest election issue for a number of years. Any political party that didn't understand this, and have concrete plans to address health care issues would have committed political suicide.

About a year ago, Canadians ranked the top 100 Canadians. Tommy Douglas, deemed the key person in implementing universal health care in Canada, was ranked number 1.

In the U.S., health care is a big issue but certainly not the biggest. Some day it may be the biggest. If and when that happens, it will be ordinary citizens that will force changes through the democratic process. The United States will be fully capable of implementing a fair and sensible universal health care system, despite being a very large country.

Think about it. One of the two major political parties in the U.S. picks Universal Health Care as its primary campaign focus. How many people would vote for that platform? Quite a lot, I suspect.

Personally, I think it's just a matter of time.

While orgasms are nice from the standpoint of human happiness, I don't think the lack thereof is a good priority for national healthcare benefits.

Birth control allows woman to have sex for enjoyment without worrying about pregnancy. So by saying this, you are saying that birth control isn't a good priority of national health care benefits. Yet, you say you would support it paying for it. Isn't that a textbook double standard?


Otherwise, we gotta pay for all the treatment for non-orgasmic women, and there's a lot of them out there.

The fundimental flaw with this idea is that, non-orgasmic women are able to conceive and bare children. A man with ED can not procreate. It's not just old men that can't "get it up" that are using ED drugs. If fertility treatments are covered for women then what's wrong with ED treatments being covered for men?

If I were Cheney, and without any sort of ethics, I'd probably have left some pretty good friends back in Halliburton and I'd want to throw work their way whenever possible. I'd probably expect to get treated very well in return some time in the future.

Has Cheney got ED? I'm not sure how he fits in here ;).

Oops... I think I posted to the wrong thread. Doh!

Drugs which say that they fix female sexual dysfunction(female impotence) are in clinical trials as we type.

From the interviews of the first round clinical studies participants, I would support the offering of these meds for free(government paid for) right now. /wink.

I don't even know if the med has a trade name yet, but if you own stock in KY, I would consider trading soon. Or at least researching it.

To me, getting your cookies and preventing a bun, are two different things. Although I'd probably pay for vasectomies under my health care plan.