digg

Join DiggAbout

Michael Moore Cut this Scene from Sicko Because No One Would Believe it watch!

bravenewfilms.org — In addition to France, Canada, and the UK, Michael Moore also went to Norway. What he found, was unbelievable.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • TGMD, on 11/27/2007, -342/+77Yeah.... That's with at least 50% income tax plus MASSIVELY being subsidized by their oil industry... Not realistic, waste of money etc etc

    Moore is nothing more than a propagandist (although canadian bacon was funny... I know I'm alone in that)
    • reeder, on 11/27/2007, -38/+264Propaganda is what we get on TV everyday telling us that corporate rape is a-OK!!!

      And if you think spending money on health care is a waste, then shame on you. The US system is far more corrupt and wasteful than anything Europe has. Medicare drug benefit/ $500 billion give away anyone?

      Are people like you completely brainwashed, or is it in tandem with sheer sefl-destructive idiocy? I've always wondered....
      • TGMD, on 11/27/2007, -114/+33You're not realistic, there's no way in hell this country can possibly afford socialist healthcare. it's as simple as that.
        Furthermore, what right does the government have to take away well over half my income in order to pay for others' healthcare?

        Socialists are ruining this country. I Grew up poor sir, I grew up in the projects with no healthcare, I don't look for handouts and frankly your simplistic worldview is sad.

        And you actually looked into this you'd know the only reason why they aren't drowning in debt is because of their oil.
        • seanieb, on 11/27/2007, -25/+71The US is the richest county in the world, bar none. If Norway can afford it so could the US (if they didn't have needless wars, corrupt politicians and defense budge thats nuts). The US also has the largest Oil reserves in the world.

          Money isn't the issue here its political will. And I think a 50% tax is a small price to pay somy family, friends and country mendon't have to live in a hell hole.

          And its your world view thats simplistic, your capitalistic every man for himself attitude is black and white and we live in a world of grey. Your veiw point doesn't allow for the notion of community.

          My Killer point to your rhetoric is, how is this system you praise work? In the US you have a record crime rates and a massive amount of the population are broke.
          • PleaseJustDie, on 11/27/2007, -47/+2450% tax? are you ***** insane? I can barely pay my bills and survive at whatever the hellishly high tax rate I'm at right now, something like 25%. If you increase the tax to 50% to help the poor, the first result would be people like me in the lower middle class being taxed into the poor bracket and debt beyond I can handle, so ***** you and your 50%.
          • norman619, on 11/27/2007, -26/+25Speak for yourself you moron. The gov has shown us time and time again how it can't manage what we've given them as it is. Take a look at medicare. How about the hell also known as the DMV? This works in small countries like Norway because they have a very small population and have ample oil. This is more of Moore's half-truths. If you really want to know the truth then look into their system and see why it works for them. What works well in small social groups doesn't tend to work so well in very LARGE and MIXED social groups.
          • MWeather, on 11/27/2007, -7/+31How much do you pay for health insurance? If you paid that money to the government instead, what would your equivalent tax rate be?

            Or do you not even have insurance?
          • babydaddy6, on 11/27/2007, -18/+24You are absolutely wrong in saying that the US is the richest country in the world. As a matter of fact, Norway has a higher GDP per capita than the US. Depending on which source you site and which time frame, Norway is sometimes ranked 2nd only to Luxembourg, with the US as low as 8th.

            I would rather pay my insurance premiums and less tax. Those who cannot provide for themselves will then turn to their local houses of prayer, like we used to. Yes, I am from a poor American single parent family. We didn't need the government to come take care of us. My mother worked as many jobs as she needed to so we could have good meals, clothes and a house. The US government had nothing to do with that. Any help we got was from family and our church!
          • scubasteve377, on 11/27/2007, -7/+10Norway's massive oil reserves are nationalized, and it is for this reason, and this reason alone, that their system of government is viable. Norway is the second largest exporter of oil in the world (Saudi Arabia is first), and has a population equal to roughly 1.3% of that of the United States. That means you have an incredible amount of wealth that is spread out over a relatively tiny population.

            This wealth, however, is not sustainable beyond the limitations of the finite oil supply and in the event that the oil runs out or the world moves to an alternative fuel source, the situation in Norway will change drastically and their socialist utopia will fall apart very quickly.

            Since we, here in the US, have neither a small population nor an extremely lucrative export, the Norway model could not possibly be viable here in the States, since those are the two things that the Norway model are completely dependent upon. When things seem too good to be true, they usually are.

            Also, I find it ironic that the liberals here don't seem to have any problem with the fact that the high standard of living in Norway is payed for by oil. Does that not bother you, or is it that you only feel the need to speak against the rape of the environment when it goes against your political agenda?
          • TheTaoOfBill, on 11/27/2007, -9/+3I do not support socialized health care because the government would be able to pick and choose who it wants to help and who it thinks doesn't deserve help. Do you really want the government telling you how to heal yourself? At least with our current system there is competition. Hillary and the likes can say there will be an option all they want but how many insurance companies are going to stay in business when everyone is put on a government program. Eventually there will be very little competition and the government would have nearly full control over what medical practices are acceptable.

            Want an abortion? You might have to pay for it yourself if a republican congress ever gets in charge. Want medical procedures that came from stem cell research? You might be out of luck there too! Do you believe your brain dead relative still might wake up one day? The government might disagree and cut him/her off funding despite his/her wishes.

            Socialized health care makes it nearly impossible for the people to decide what is best for them when they get sick. And that is scary as hell to me.
          • BabyWookie, on 11/28/2007, -2/+3You can barely pay your bills not because of the taxes, but because the capitalist that you work for is allowed to get away with paying you less than your work if worth. That's the main issue, not the taxes.
          • EditorResponse, on 11/28/2007, -3/+2The petty criminal Moore you will find came BACK from Cuba, France and Norway!? Go figure. If its so good "over there" why didn't the petty criminal stay? Especially in Cuba where he belongs.
        • Logicexe, on 11/27/2007, -18/+71Of course it's because of their oil, never mind the fact that various other nations without any oil are still able to afford good universal health care. Nope, only because of the oil. /sarcasm

          You have an issue with paying for other people's health care and handouts, but did you ever stop to think that you yourself would benefit from these "handouts?" Why does the government have the right to tax you to pay for policemen, firefighters and the military but they don't have the right to offer medical care? Why not privatize the police! I'm sure charging a few thousand per visit would go over fine if it was good old fashioned capitalist police, not the crummy socialist police like we have now.

          I mean obviously socialism is always bad, it's not like socialism and capitalism each have their own positives and negatives and if we want to live in a stable society we have to find balance between the two, No that's a load of hogwash, socialism is always wrong because we're American dammit!
          • charlie55, on 11/27/2007, -24/+14i get it, you want to take money so you can have free stuff. too bad.
          • Logicexe, on 11/27/2007, -9/+17It's not free if I have to pay my fair share now is it? :P
          • MWeather, on 11/27/2007, -9/+14To him it is, that's why he won't use his Social Security, out of principle. Right?
          • norman619, on 11/27/2007, -16/+8Didn't your mom every teach you that there is no such thing as a free lunch? I guess you also still believe in the tooth fairy?
        • Ph34rb0t, on 11/27/2007, -3/+15One of the main reasons you cannot afford healthcare are the drug and equipment costs.

          Most Hospitals rent the equipment from a company that also performs maintenance on said equipment. Which in the end costs far more than the equipment, and a maintenance contract would in the first place. Also the equipment is highly over-priced to begin with, there is no way that an MRI machine is actually worth several million dollars in manufacturing costs.

          The other major boon in your current healthcare system is 'Designer' drugs. Why do hospitals use the specialized variants of low cost drugs? (i.e Tylenol vs any other acetaminophen)
          • Mothrog, on 11/27/2007, -7/+5" there is no way that an MRI machine is actually worth several million dollars in manufacturing costs."

            Congratulations on letting the world know how absolutely uneducated you are. MRIs need extremely high magnetic fields and very sensitive sensors.
          • mrsteveman1, on 11/27/2007, -3/+6Quit acting like products should be restricted in price to what they cost to manufacture. You're a complete moron if you think research, development, employee salaries, etc should play no part in the cost of goods and services. Those MRI machines would not exist if someone had not funded their development.
          • jgtg32a, on 11/27/2007, -1/+2@mrsteveman1
            You've hit the nail on the head, in the US research costs cannot be applied to the cost of production.
        • TGMD, on 11/27/2007, -45/+15You know I don't need rich white boys from the suburbans telling me how their socialism can make the world better.

          I've actually researched this topic, I got degrees in Economics and History so I think I know a little about this.
          Socialism doesn't work, it's a simple fact. Not only isn't it not fair to those who are middle-class and above but it needlessly sucks money out the economy, add's a level of government bureaucracy that shouldn't exist, overall decreases the quality of healthcare, creates a monopoly where none existed before, hinder investment in new capital, disrupts entry into the market etc etc the List goes on people

          Socialism doesn't work in the longrun, any economist can tell you that. Not only that it's not economically viable in the first place, most countries with socialism are suffering from suffer debt, Norway is an exception because they are subsidized by oil.

          So here's my advice for all you, Stop watching this propaganda, pick up a book or two on economics and before you start spouting something as if it's true RESEARCH IT!
          • luchid, on 11/27/2007, -13/+39Socialism doesn't work?! Quick! Someone tell the US Gov't to get rid of our socialized roads, socialized police and socialized education before it's too late!
          • Magnolit, on 11/27/2007, -10/+10The education is terrible, the bridges are falling down and the police is using tazers on people more than ever.
          • leahcim, on 11/27/2007, -8/+13Our roads are crumbling, our police are corrupt and our public education system is terrible.
          • Fhwqhgads, on 11/27/2007, -4/+8So all the other countries who have socialized health care are lying about it? Please tell me you are a troll and not a human being.

            As Moore himself said in the Sanjay Gupta interview "We need to re-prioritize things."

            If the US had their priorities straight IN THE FIRST PLACE it wouldn't be such a big deal to switch to social health care now.
          • adooga, on 11/27/2007, -4/+3There is no way you could have obtained two degrees with such a low standard of written communication.
            Unless you're in America where standards seem to be a bit lower.
        • Nooze2k, on 11/27/2007, -7/+25I don't think socialism in itself is bad, it is how and what it is applied to that makes it "bad". The essentials like police, firefighters, school, etc. are all socialized in some way. I myself am a middle class Canadian, and as such I greatly appreciate the fact that in the case of an emergency, I don't have to have the worry in the back of my head that I will have to pay through the nose for anything that happens. If anything, the lower class appreciate it the most, as it provides them services that they could never afford somewhere else. From a purely observational point of view, the only people I can see that are complaining of the health care system here in Canada are the upper-class/rich, but even this is still limited to a small minority of said people. Personally, I feel that government subsidized healthcare is not only a privilege, but in many ways a right as a human being. Whether a person lives or dies should not be decided by the amount of money that one has.
          • guntario, on 11/27/2007, -23/+9What makes socialism bad is the fact that you have to take money from someone and redistribute it. That is sinful.
          • mrsteveman1, on 11/27/2007, -1/+2The money isn't the problem. The problem is that today it's "we can fund health care", tomorrow it will be "we are funding health care except for abortion, pain pills, medical marijuana, people who smoke pot, people who skydive".
        • netdroid9, on 11/27/2007, -9/+21What's wrong with paying a couple bucks (or, god forbid, perhaps even a couple of dozen) for the piece of mind that if you or anyone else have a serious injury, they can be treated for it even if they don't have health insurance and can't afford the medical care they require? It's not like you don't spend that much already on war, oil and politicians' superannuation funds.
          • djbon2112, on 11/27/2007, -4/+10Because it's more than a "couple bucks".

            $60 000 per year * 50% tax = only $30 000 of your hard earned money in your pocket. That is not right, period.

            If people in North America knew how to save intelligently for emergencies you wouldn't hear nearly as many stories about bankruptcy from injuries and hospital stays. But oh, we must be good consumerists though! "***** saving, BUY BUY BUY".
          • Fhwqhgads, on 11/27/2007, -4/+8"If people in North America knew how to save intelligently for emergencies you wouldn't hear nearly as many stories about bankruptcy from injuries and hospital stays."

            Not North America, just the US. You see, nobody ever goes bankrupt due to medical bills in Canada. We agree that health care is a human right and not something to profit from.
          • djbon2112, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1@ Fhw: Sorry, I've gotten in the habit of saying "North America" but in this case I mean the US only.

            I'm Canadian, and I disagree that it's a "human right" (I take issue with that term from a philosophical point of view, but that's not the debate right now). I don't think we should abolish what we already have (though a dual system would work better), but I believe it would be a disaster to try to implement full Canadian/European-style Medicare in the US.
        • brstilson, on 11/27/2007, -9/+28Wait a second, don't you pay the insurance companies for other peoples' health care? If you're not sick and not taking any meds, what do you think you're paying for. You make it sound like you don't get the same benefits as everyone else. We have socialized medicine now, it's just controlled by private interests with ZERO accountability.
          • Ebulating, on 11/27/2007, -3/+9And a profit motive that puts their best interests in direct opposition to their customers.
        • TGMD, on 11/27/2007, -35/+4Oh as a Side note... I'm Canadian! Stop lumping me in with those war hungry neo-con americans!
          • nallelcm, on 11/27/2007, -3/+28Oh how embarrassing :( Please don't advertise that you're one of us (Canadian)
          • arobar, on 11/27/2007, -1/+10Stop associating yourself with us if you're going to be an idiot in public.
          • Fhwqhgads, on 11/27/2007, -1/+9Get the ***** out of this country then you heartless *****. Let the US government and corporations exploit your health for profit. Canada wants none of that. You'll feel right at home across the border.
        • Theisos, on 11/27/2007, -5/+22TGMD. You need to stop because you'll be buried to no end as long as you continue arguing/posting with these Diggers. Socialist systems do work and there are many countries around the world that can be used to prove that. When it comes to socialist systems - it's up to the people to decide if it's for them. I mean...look at Canada's medical care system - it's a socialist system - it works for them! If you're as learned as you say you are - you would have avoided arguing in the first place...and you probably should be less biased and more objective of this issue.
        • Logicexe, on 11/27/2007, -2/+21So you're Canadian eh? Tell me, how many times have you used our evil socialist medicare? And where is our massive debt you claim happens to any country using any evil socialism? Last time I checked our debt was shrinking.
        • hornfinger, on 11/27/2007, -2/+22we have a labour government in the UK, supposedly socialist. We have free medical care, little or no oil supporting us and we can still afford to go to war in iraq!
        • NiGHTSChao, on 11/27/2007, -4/+11Thats just so funny how everyone hit some sort of sore spot on TGMD
          Its like he's the little whiny bitch in the corner that tells everyone, everything is impossible because he's never experienced what other people have
        • SamuelHenderson, on 11/27/2007, -2/+3Well, the quality of the health care we have up in Northern Ontario (Sault Ste. Marie) is arguable, but thats mainly due to a severe shortage of nurses and doctors.

          I'm glad to see our national dept shrinking, and hopefully I'll be alive to see the day when Canada once again has no national dept.
        • senatorpjt, on 11/27/2007, -1/+6What if we had socialized healthcare, but you could opt out? It doesn't seem like it would be too complicated to have a system where you could buy private insurance, and they would give you a form like a W-2 at the end of the year where you could submit it and get a refund.
          • AmusedToDeath, on 11/27/2007, -2/+6Wouldn't work. The rich and middle/upper middle class would probably all opt out in favor of "premium" health care, and thus the people with the loudest voices and most power would have no vested interest in the system.
          • Grummond, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1One of the many benefits of socialized health care, is the "economy of scale" factor. If everyone takes part in this system, it can run a helluva lot more efficient than a private hospital that has to have equipment they rarely use. Plus the obvious benefit of not having to pay off investors, not having a middle man (insurance companies) etc...
        • Acolyte357, on 11/27/2007, -17/+6"My Killer point to your rhetoric is, how is this system you praise work? In the US you have a record crime rates and a massive amount of the population are broke." "The US is the richest county in the world, bar none." seems like you said it's working fine. I really don't care if it (socialist medicare) works, I do not want to pay for someone else's lack of insurance. If they can't get a job that provides health care, then they better buy an independent plan, and if they can't afford that maybe they shouldn't have been such a ***** off in school or had that kid at 15, ect... I'm sick of paying for other peoples mistakes as is. I didn't ***** up my life, so now I have to pay for your ***** up? no thanks.
          • AmusedToDeath, on 11/27/2007, -6/+14You know, it's a real misconception that those who can't afford health care are "***** ups" who flunked out of school. I'm a 30 year old, white, middle class surburbanite. I have a college degree and I own a small business. I only have one child (that I had at 28 - with my wife - whom I'm married to). Our insurance costs $500 a month, and with expected rate increases it will be close to $600 next year. Private insurance also has a nasty habit of denying claims, so we've paid close to $10,000 this year in medical bills they've denied (a fairly minor surgery for my wife - that's right, minor surgery can cost $10,000 if you insurance denies your claim). So that means I'll pay out about 25% of my income this year in medical costs for a family of 3 plus the 25% I have to give to Uncle Sam.

            The problem with ***** like you Acolyte is that you've had your employer pay 2/3 of your health costs and half of your income tax all your working life, so you have no idea what the REAL costs are. Unless you want to be a line worker or a cubicle drone, the system is completely stacked against you.
          • Otto, on 11/27/2007, -4/+3AmusedToDeath:
            Okay, so you've had to pay for some health care this year, and you also got ***** health insurance. Fair enough.

            Now, why do you want *me* to pay for your health care problems? Would you pay for mine if the situation were reversed? If you can answer that and do it absolutely honestly, then you won't be a hypocrite.
          • Klinky, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1Otto>> Go price healthcare that it is not subsidized through your employer. You will find the prices staggering. There are many lower-end jobs which are required for society to function(food, retail, gas, cleaning), but yet these workers do not have any chance of getting healthcare through their work. For one of them to get insurance you're looking at $100 - $300 per month. Lower-end healthcare plans DO NOT cover the entire cost of procedures, so if you have a $10K surgery, you may find yourself having to pay a $1K - $4K co-pay. Also if you have an existing condition(diabetes, cancer, lupus - diseases which in many cases may not have been due to your lifestyle choices) you are likely to be denied ANY medical coverage at all. No one will sign you up or if they do you are looking at paying 3 or 4 times as much as someone who does not have an existing condition. For someone making minimum wage this is impossible.

            These people do not go to doctors, they go to work ill, which gets other people ill & if illness or injury becomes too serious they go to the ER. The hospital may eventually write their bill off or they are stuck in a mountain of debt they have no hope of paying off.

            This is the treatment we give to people who are hardworking. I don't give a flying ***** if it's a menial labor job, they are out there doing their part and trying to make it by and their services are required for society to function. Telling someone to "get a better job and then you can go see a doctor" is not a viable solution, that is exactly how our current system is setup. Health is fundamental & everyone should have a right. I would be willing to give up 10% - 15% of my paycheck each month if it meant that I & everyone out there would be covered.
        • duke, on 11/27/2007, -4/+8Prove it.

          You call this propaganda and ask for research - this video cites the facts on which it relies for its points. Where are your points? Where's YOUR research? Why is it different when you sit there at your keyboard and simply "declare" this to be propaganda?
          • scubasteve377, on 11/27/2007, -1/+7"Norway possesses the second highest GDP per-capita and third highest GDP (PPP) per-capita in the world, and has maintained 1st place in the world in the UNDP Human Development Index (HDI) for the fifth consecutive year (2006).

            Cost of living is about 30% higher in Norway than in the United States and 25% higher than the United Kingdom...

            The country is richly endowed with natural resources including petroleum, hydropower, fish, forests, and minerals. Norway has obtained one of the highest standards of living in the world in part by having a large amount of natural resources compared to the size of population. The income from natural resources include a significant contribution from petroleum production...

            In 2006, oil and gas accounted for 58% of exports. Only Russia and OPEC member Saudi Arabia export more oil than Norway, which is not an OPEC member." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Economy

            Norway's massive oil reserves are nationalized, and it is for this reason, and this reason alone, that their system of government is viable. Norway is the third largest exporter of oil in the world, and has a population equal to roughly 1.3% of that of the United States. That means you have an incredible amount of wealth that is spread out over a relatively tiny population. This wealth, however, is not sustainable beyond the limitations of the finite oil supply and in the event that the oil runs out or the world moves to an alternative fuel source, the situation in Norway will change drastically and their socialist utopia will fall apart very quickly. Since we, here in the US, have neither a small population nor an extremely lucrative export, the Norway model could not possibly be viable here in the States, since those are the two things that the Norway model are completely dependent upon.

            These facts were conveniently left out by Mr. Moore and is probably why this scene was cut from his film because it would not be able stand up to criticisms. Putting it on the DVD only, virtually ensures that it will be seen only by people who already agree with him and who will not question what they are being told. When things seem too good to be true, they usually are.
        • Logicexe, on 11/27/2007, -5/+11Acolyte357, welcome to society. Like it or not we'll be much better off if we work together, stop being such a selfish douchebag and help your fellow man.
        • Theisos, on 11/27/2007, -3/+8The thing about a purely capitalist system is that it creates nasty inequalities when it comes to the distribution of wealth. When you're working within a country relying on a particular system to make money - things can get bad as easily as they can get good. Sometimes it's wise for the government to safeguard its people when things get bad for them. Remember that when you own a business - you make money because the government has created a system within which you can operate and prosper - so it's not completely unreasonable when it comes to the government "regulating" things to ensure that the people as a country are safe from inevitable inequalities.
        • throop77, on 11/27/2007, -0/+6~75% of the cost of drugs in America today is marketing; ~25% is research. Commercials tell people to "talk to their prescriber" (not doctor). I think it would be better to have doctors decide what is best for their patients (whose motivation is the health of their patients), rather than drug companies (whose motivation is profit).
        • shakin, on 11/27/2007, -0/+12TGMD: "You're not realistic, there's no way in hell this country can possibly afford socialist healthcare. it's as simple as that. "

          How about ending Israel military subsidies, the war in Iraq, and other wasteful spending where billions of tax dollars are leaving the US or ending up in the pockets of rich people? I bet the government could lower taxes _and_ provide health care.
      • Sino, on 11/27/2007, -6/+38Now i wanna move to norway.......
      • nallelcm, on 11/27/2007, -5/+9I like money
    • Dreamfiend, on 11/27/2007, -20/+70i would gladly take 50% income tax and deal with women in power to live in the "best" country in the world.
      It is only money you know.
      • SuperWinner, on 11/27/2007, -24/+11Wait till you move out of your parents basement, then say that.
      • Bishop256, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1then give me all your money.
      • obxjdt, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1Then I recommend you move to Norway!
      • Grummond, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1They don't pay 50% in taxes though, read all the other comments for the facts.
    • Shakermaker, on 11/27/2007, -15/+3Wow. There's just all sort of FAIL in your statement.
      I agree with reeder. Think for yourself, and not what people tell you.
      • skyroket, on 11/29/2007, -0/+0That's the funniest ***** irony I've heard in quite some time.
    • FatherVic, on 11/27/2007, -6/+24Anyone else think that its funny that the main focus of the video is the low crime (murder) rate? Anyone...?
      Because Norway has virtually NO gun laws.
      Bowling for Columbine, anyone?
      • DatVillain83, on 11/27/2007, -4/+6Cause Moore's never forgets to remind people that American's are enamored with their right to bear arms. people in America are just unconformable with anything unfamiliar lets face it; we're consumers of conformity. When someone is different from you, something HAS to be wrong with THEM, and instead of looking in the mirror it feels safer to be behind the kickback of an automatic weapon.
      • tbydal, on 11/27/2007, -7/+5And yet almost no one owns a gun in norway.

        A few own rifles for hunting, but pistols or anything meant to use as defence against humans? no way.
        • FatherVic, on 11/27/2007, -1/+11"Norway has far and away Western Europe’s highest household gun ownership rate (32%)" (Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol 30, WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE? A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE, DON B. KATES AND GARY MAUSER, www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf)
        • Bamont, on 11/27/2007, -0/+5You sir, have just been owned. And to think - a quick google could have allayed all question
        • tbydal, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2Whops, my apologies, you're right. I found that very surprising since i actually live here :P Guess i'll have to check my statements better next time.

          (Though, in my defence, the rules are pretty strict. You have to have a reasonable need for a gun to get a permit, and self defence usually isnt valid. Hunting and competetive shooting is though.)
          • FatherVic, on 11/28/2007, -1/+1on the contrary...
            Self Defense and Special Guard Duties are provided for in paragraph 7 of Norway's Firearms Weapons act.
            Link provided...
            http://www.lovdata.no/all/nl-19610609-001.html
          • tbydal, on 11/28/2007, -0/+0So you're norwegian then? Self defense isn't a valid reason unless you actually need self-defense.

            from wikipedia: "To own a weapon in Norway, one must document a use for the weapon. By far, the most common grounds for letting a civilian purchase and own a weapon is hunting and sports shooting, in that order. Other needs can include special guard duties or self defense, but the first is rare and the second reason is practically never accepted as a reason for gun ownership."

            from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norwa ...

            Which fits my experience. I've never met anyone who carried or even owned a weapon for self-defense.
    • numbered, on 11/27/2007, -10/+11TGMD You are a politician's dream. "Hey cool, if we just deficit spend, we can spend as much as we want and don't have to raise taxes! I mean it will destroy our dollar and indebt our country beyond return but hey idiots like TGMD think we're doing a good job! Hell he even believe's that being one of the only first world countries without national healthcare is a good thing WOOHOO!". DEATH PENALTY YEAH! GO RUMSFELT!
      /failatlife
    • grr74, on 11/27/2007, -6/+44Isn't it ironic then that Norway with 50% tax (as you claim, but I reject) has the most millionaires per capita in the world?
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2007/jul/13/busine ...

      Also consider Sweden without oil wealth, yet they also have a socialized health care system similar to that of Norway. And then there is Denmark...
      • KingBabi, on 11/27/2007, -0/+4Sweden's doing pretty well for itself
      • goetsche, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1Denmark is Scandinavia's best economy right now :-)
        • Grummond, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1True, and they don't have Norway's oil ressources (although they basically gave the norwegians the oilfields).
    • Bodhinature, on 11/27/2007, -3/+10Yes, its subsidized by their public/national oil. And what about our oil industry? We could nationalize our reserves and subsidize our healthcare system. Done! Also, we could scale down our military spending, (400 billion dollars) currently larger than the next two most militarized nations combined, and we wouldn't even have to raise taxes!
      • Arkons24, on 11/27/2007, -2/+4and then a healthcare system would still bankrupt us.
    • minorthreat, on 11/27/2007, -2/+1750% income tax? Have you been to norway? I've had the privilege of visiting 3 times this year. Its not quite 50%.. and it doesn't matter if its that high because people make more money anyone. There is no minimum wage law, but from what I was told from various people, it's unheard of to make less than 12-15 dollars an hour.
      • FatherVic, on 11/27/2007, -8/+5...and there's no minimum wage law? An economy pays more because it is not forced to? Unheard of!!!
        As much socialism that goes on there works because it seems it is done right.
        I have learned 2 things from Norway:
        1. No minimum wage law = higher wages
        2. No gun laws = lower murder rate

        interesting.
        • Enchantrem, on 11/27/2007, -3/+11The conclusions you draw show an inability to deduce proper cause/effect relationships... did it even occur to you that a minimum wage law was never proposed in Norway's legislature because there was never a desire for one? From where I sit, it's not a situation where the government stepped back and things started working... it's a situation where things worked, so the government never needed to step in.
          • FatherVic, on 11/27/2007, -3/+6Desire and need are 2 different things. So is the perception of need.
            Paying your employees comes not only from desire to do so, but from ability. Norway only taxes profits at 25% while in the US taxes range from 27% in North Carolina to up to 82% in Alaska (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=275862 ... and that is just on the state level. When businesses are allowed to keep their money, there is an ability to pay employees more money. Business owners pay min wage because they can get away with it by law. Why would they want to do that? Easy... The Government is taking a good (unfair) share of their profits in taxes. Min Wage laws are a slap in the face to business owners who are having their money stolen by the government(s) of this land. Lower the taxes on business and give the money back, repeal the min wage laws and watch wages rise.
        • tbydal, on 11/27/2007, -0/+7Actually, norway has a high income and no need for a minimum wage because of unions. Almost everyone with a fulltime job is in a union, and they are in very high esteem with the people.
      • dan222555, on 11/27/2007, -5/+3"Its not quite 50%.. and it doesn't matter if its that high because people make more money anyone."
        You do realize how percents work, right?
        • TheDragon, on 11/27/2007, -1/+3Uh... Yeah.. You understand that 50% of 1,000 is more than 50% of 500, right? Just wondering. I mean, we can all take the trip back to the second grade if you really want.
    • jdoe562, on 11/27/2007, -1/+31High taxes don't mean anything when the government won't let you starve, go homeless, or become bankrupted by medical fees.
      • Arkons24, on 11/27/2007, -15/+3wahhh wahhh I can't take care of myself so plz nanny government plz take care of me!!!! I can't possibly take care of myself in this cruel, heartless world.
        • shawnolds, on 11/27/2007, -2/+8So what your saying "Arkons24" is that your parents should have thrown you in a ditch somewhere and banned anyone from teaching and caring for you for the rest of your life? Because a tribe is just an extension of the family and Government is just an extension of that. Are you saying that your mother shouldn't have breast fed you or cooked you any meals, because it sounds to me like the world would have been better off if she hadn't. Thanks, but no thanks for being an Idiot!
    • devo9ineteen, on 11/27/2007, -0/+8Norway has the highest ratio of Government surplus as a percent of rGDP in the world, but a huge amount comes from oil:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles ...

      so, yes Norway is a great country to live in, but as any economist will tell you, the picture is not always perfect. Don't say how great Norway is if you've ever argued that we need to combat global warming or shift away from fossil fuels, because Norwegians are living off of what you are fighting against. Just food for thought.
      • Grummond, on 11/27/2007, -0/+4Actually, most of the oil money goes to a fund.
        Besides, the other scandinavian countries don't have their oil money, and the system works there too.
        • devo9ineteen, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2Good point. My next questions are: a) what fund? and b) do you think the much smaller populations contribute to a much more fiscally responsible and effective health care system? I feel (and my opinion can be disagreed with) that the logistics behind an equal system in the United States are mind boggling. However, I think everyone agrees that proper health care for a US citizens is an admirable goal we need to strive for.
    • illt, on 11/27/2007, -1/+3what people don't realize, is that most of the rest of the world is still very homogeneous.
      granted, this doesn't cause all our problems, but it doesn't make things easier.
    • heystoopid, on 11/27/2007, -3/+1Oh well with your crappy poor research ignorance is truly bliss !
      Delight in omitting real information because it clashes with your blinkered narrow minded point of view and prefer propaganda to real facts !
      One could surmise you work in a HMO and use your decline stamp often do you ?
      Your circular argument reminded me of one I heard way back long ago in 1949 , the irony of it all is that these so called private institutions that spouted this line of rubbish are now saying five decades on , they wish to do what was originally proposed way back then !
      By the way nice seven veils of concrete propaganda you are wearing it goes well with your Prada designed leather eye blinkers !
      Have much trouble keeping your head up with all that excess concrete propaganda baggage you carry do we ?
    • tybris, on 11/27/2007, -1/+2Indeed. Norway used to be a poor, underdeveloped country in comparison with the rest of Western-Europe. And then they found oil. It's not like they're super humans.
      • hamobu, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1it is as if Oil was not profitable until Socialism/Putin/Chavez/AnythingWeDisagreeWith came to be.
      • Grummond, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1Norway was never a poor and underdeveloped country, what are you talking about?
    • TheDragon, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1So the fact that they have the highest income per capita kinda renders your overtax statement useless.
      DEATH TO YOU ZOMG.
    • DFENS, on 11/28/2007, -0/+4Your statement is meaningless. If they paid 50% taxes and we paid 30% taxes and got the same services, it would be fair. However, They get more for the taxes they pay. How much does your health insurance cost monthly? Add that to a deductable and it wouldn't be hard to imagine another tousand over 6 months, on the low end. Add dental, vision, car insurance and the rest in - all which they get with their taxes, and many americans are paying well into 50% of their income to the same thing they are. Just because we pay money for the same things and don't call it 'taxes' doesn't mean it's not the same money.
    • brucemanly, on 11/28/2007, -0/+3I don't know where people get this idea that national healthcare will bankrupt you. I pay around 21% tax, in the uk. I live comfortably, the only insurance I have is car and home. Pay and go health care simply equals better care for the rich. Healthcare is a basic necessity, I shouldn't have to be raking it in to be gauranteed full care, it's a human right.
    • goetsche, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2Maybe Denmark would be a better example than Norway? The same free benefits (health care, education (and u do choose your degree, not the state!), elder homes, etc.
      Denmark Doesn't have oil reserves as Norway, but still we don't have any foreign debt.
      The minimum wage is about 20 $, taxes never go above 50 %. Personally i pay 38 %, making 28 $ an hour. And the exchange rate just keeps on getter better, as long as the us spend all their money in different middle-eastern countries. Make me want to buy a trans-Atlantic ticket and fly over to flash thoose Euro´s € !
    • Tzeeneth, on 11/30/2007, -0/+0Look at Sweden, not a drop of oil.
      But they still have the same socialized medical system as Norway and it works great there to
  • Androfire, on 11/27/2007, -71/+7Who is that woman who interviewed the dude at the bay? Is she with Michael Moore, or is the second half somebody else's documentary?
    • NiGHTSChao, on 11/27/2007, -3/+11Obviously its impossible that other people accompanied Moore, clearly theres no possible way for any other person in existence to help Michael travel around the world and get footage
  • kaelyiesta, on 11/27/2007, -38/+335Probably one of the best examples to challenge my Libertarian beliefs and keep me thinking about this stuff. Dugg.
    • thcobbs, on 11/27/2007, -40/+11While this was at least thought provoking, it was nothing more than an FU to fox news. He could have made his point ever so much better without the 60 second diatribes of individual anchors on fox.
      • shawnolds, on 11/27/2007, -3/+5Who cares about FOX! FOX is a direct extension of the fascist NeoCon propaganda machine. They prove it every day. It's not so much what they report on, on FAUX news, it's what they don't report on that's important!
        • skankyBacon, on 11/27/2007, -5/+1OMG "FAUX" news! That is so clever of you. Did you just think of that? That is such an awesome and compelling argument that you have convinced me 100%. Well done, sir, well done.
        • Bishop256, on 11/27/2007, -4/+1its cute that you get your news and opinions straight from digg.com so you know to hate fox news.
        • adooga, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2No but really, who gives a ***** about fox? Really?
    • Logicexe, on 11/27/2007, -22/+89Think about it this way, you're a libertarian but I'm sure you don't have a problem with a socialist police force, firefighters, or a state run military force. Most libertarians are willing to concede that in these cases it's better to have the government take care of it, but why is medicare any different? Why is a socialist military good, but a socialist medicare system bad?

      I'm a Canadian and let me tell you, you'll never hear anyone complain more about our medicare system than anyone who's gone the emergency room on the weekend with a minor injury. Yes the waiting time is long, but at least I have the peace of mind to know that I am guaranteed service, there is no chance of my insurance company can refuse to pay for the treatment.
      • BoneheadFarker, on 11/27/2007, -5/+36After a suspected bout of appendicitus last year, I will never bitch about waiting for minor treatment again. I was in an MRI within 30 minutes of entering the ER...
        • Logicexe, on 11/27/2007, -5/+36That's something I forgot to mention. When you need service now, far more often than not you'll get service now. It's easy to take a camera into a waiting room and film a bunch of sick looking people and say "Look at the evil socialist medicare! Look at all the people waiting for care!" never mind the fact that most of those people probably have minor cuts, a migraine or a fever.
        • agent888, on 11/27/2007, -21/+5An MRI for suspected appendix issues?? That is gross over utilization of resources.
          At most you diagnose that with a CAT scan with use of a contrast medium, a fluid from an IV that 'highlights' your appendix. Most good ER physicians can recognize it even without the contrast added, which saves time because getting the IV drip into your blood takes an hour or so.
          One ER nurse once told me, "I just have the patient jump in the air.. If they can land and support their own weight, then its not appendicitis"
          Using an MRI seems like a waste of time and money.
          • BoneheadFarker, on 11/27/2007, -1/+12Well OK, I wasn't exactly paying attention to the machine considering the pain I was in. All I remember is having to drink this crappy stuff that reminded me of bad Pina Colada and getting into this big ass machine. Could have been a CAT scan...
        • Jektal, on 11/27/2007, -2/+8agent888: I recently (July 4th) had my appendix removed, and couldn't tell you for sure whether it was an MRI or a CAT scan (probably CAT, but not sure), Bonehead might've just been confused.

          Personally I'm sure I could've jumped and landed just fine, although very uncomfortably, so I'm glad you didn't give me your field test. For me they gave me a dye/contrast fluid of some sort in drinkable form which took at least an hour, which was given to me after I had been sitting in the ER for at least an hour. All in all I came in, got right into the ER immediately, and then wasn't diagnosed for 2-3 hours (at which point they immediately assembled an operating team, around midnight on a holiday, so I didn't catch it very early). And this was in the US and yes I am fully insured (the (very large) hospital bill was covered except for my $400 co-pay).
        • bboySNO, on 11/27/2007, -1/+5Yeah it would definitely have been a CAT scan. I remember when i got my appendix removed a few years ago, drinking that large bottle of ***** pina coloda stuff while in pain was torturous. But as agent888 said, that's what makes your appendix glow in the CAT scan.
      • DeviantDragon, on 11/27/2007, -5/+28Well arguments libertarians would make are that everybody benefits from the protective effects of national security and police and firefighting but on issues like health care not everybody would necessarily reap the benefits despite paying into the system. After all, Libertarians don't espouse a non-existent government. They believe a government's role is to protect a citizen's rights. This is accomplished through military and police whereas health care is not protecting any right that libertarians believe are fundamental while in fact infringing on one's rights to spend their money in as free a fashion as possible without infringing on others' rights.
        • Logicexe, on 11/27/2007, -17/+17That's the issue, medicare should be considered a right that everyone should have. It's no different than any of the other rights you mentioned. At some point in your life you're going to need medical care, it might not be because of a serious disease, or a serious accident but at some point you're going to need to see a doctor either for routine checkups or for minor sicknesses and injuries.
          • clclark33, on 11/27/2007, -17/+15You have the right to health care, just not at anyone else's expense. Making other people pay for your health care is tantamount to indentured servitude.
          • exegesisClique, on 11/27/2007, -10/+15I wish people would stop spouting libertarian and socialist rhetoric.

            When you say ***** like "just not at anyone else's expense" it's about as useful, and correct as the fundamentalist saying "thats easy God made it that way". It is just as fundamentalist and just as useless.

            Economics and society are a balancing act, how much money is spent on people without health care, what are the indirect costs of people not having health care, does it increase crime, poverty, discontent? What does that cost you? You *must* take these things into account.

            Should everything be socialized? Of course not, that would as stupid as everything being privatized. It's a balance, there are just somethings that can not function properly with a profit motive.
          • notque, on 11/27/2007, -8/+7@clclark

            So profiting off the work of other people is wage slavery? Living without having to work based on owning property is wrong?

            Right?
          • vuke69, on 11/27/2007, -2/+10@notque

            "So profiting off the work of other people is wage slavery?"

            No, thats called a business. The government thinking it has the right to take all your work, and graciously letting you keep some of it, THAT'S slavery.

            "Living without having to work based on owning property is wrong?"

            No, that's called making wise investments.

            Do you honestly have no concept of how the world works, or are you just really good at faking it?
          • BabyWookie, on 11/28/2007, -3/+3"No, thats called a business. The government thinking it has the right to take all your work, and graciously letting you keep some of it, THAT'S slavery."

            In response, let me just quote one of my favorite recent Digg comments and then add something of my own:

            "The struggle for liberty (the definition of which depends on who you ask) and the class struggle are the same. As long as the working class is exploited by the capitalists, the working class has no liberty. As long as I'm a wage slave, I'm not free. Freedom comes when the tyranny of private property is no more. Freedom comes when working people receive everything they are owed, every factory, machine, farm, crop field, sickle, hammer and nail. Freedom comes when the people is no longer at the mercy of the market. Freedom comes when there is no more poverty, no more homeless, no more wars and no more inequality or injustice.

            Until we all arrive at that day, I'm not free." --terrordome

            You lose a lot more money because the capitalist is allowed to get away with paying you a lot less than your work is worth, in order to support his exuberant life-style, than you ever will by paying taxes that benefit all of the society. That's the real slavery.
          • andrew1193, on 11/28/2007, -1/+2""The struggle for liberty (the definition of which depends on who you ask) and the class struggle are the same. As long as the working class is exploited by the capitalists, the working class has no liberty. As long as I'm a wage slave, I'm not free. Freedom comes when the tyranny of private property is no more. Freedom comes when working people receive everything they are owed, every factory, machine, farm, crop field, sickle, hammer and nail. Freedom comes when the people is no longer at the mercy of the market. Freedom comes when there is no more poverty, no more homeless, no more wars and no more inequality or injustice.

            Until we all arrive at that day, I'm not free." --terrordome"

            The above is communist lunacy. To destroy private property rights in the means of production requires vast amounts of terror and mass-murder. Since "terrordome" demands the collectivization of everything down to hammers and nails, it will be necessary to murder an even higher percentage of the population than Pol Pot. To "terrordome", a totalitarian state is evidently "freedom" and "liberty". No wonder he has "terror" in his name.

            "You lose a lot more money because the capitalist is allowed to get away with paying you a lot less than your work is worth, in order to support his exuberant life-style, than you ever will by paying taxes that benefit all of the society. That's the real slavery."

            Marxist "surplus value" *****, disproven by simple economics and history.
        • DeviantDragon, on 11/27/2007, -3/+22I'm not going to debate whether or not health care is a right for people, but I only sought to explain why Libertarians accept state military and police and not health care. The reason is that they fundamentally oppose your idea that health care is a right. You say that it's not different that any other rights but here's one key difference. Libertarians espouse "negative" rights which are mainly protective. IE: The right to speech implies that no one can infringe upon your right to speaking. Health care is a "positive" right as it entails actively giving somebody something because the health care that you talk about cannot be self created. Other examples of these positive rights that people propose include the right to shelter and food which differ from "negative" rights. Also, you can't claim that health care is a "negative" right in that nobody can infringe on one's right to good health because that's just the right to life. It says nothing about a need to facilitate good health, only that people cannot actively harm on that level. I'm sure Libertarians agree with that sort of right, but you cannot really change the fundamentally differences in rights perception that creates this disparity between your views and Libertarianism.
        • DeviantDragon, on 11/27/2007, -4/+14Confused as to why I'm being dugg down. Do people not want to know why Libertarianism espouses what it espouses? Give the opposing side their chance to be heard also.
        • numbered, on 11/27/2007, -10/+3I guess there are 2 kinds of libertarians. Selfish ones and altruistic ones. I'd prefer to live in a country populated by the latter. What goes around comes around guys. Just because some corporations spend alot of money to make it look like taxes are your problem, doesnt mean you have to be a zombie and believe whatever the boobtube tells you. Do a little research, try thinking for a change. Wonder why your dollar isn't tied to gold and look at your ***** national debt. Those are the things that will hurt you more than paying alittle more taxes. Think about what 50% of nothing is.
        • DeviantDragon, on 11/27/2007, -2/+19Altruistic libertarians would donate on their own personal choice rather than requiring that everybody do the same as well.
        • pkonink, on 11/27/2007, -1/+6I don't agree with that philosophy, but it's logical and consistent. And I respect it.
        • Proletariat, on 11/28/2007, -3/+1"They believe a government's role is to protect a citizen's rights. This is accomplished through military and police whereas health care is not protecting any right that libertarians believe are fundamental while in fact infringing on one's rights to spend their money in as free a fashion as possible without infringing on others' rights."

          I agree that it's government's role is to protect a citizen's rights. And I would argue that the government should protect our "guaranteed" inalienable rights of LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Rights that which can be hard to obtain when ill or for that matter stricken with life threatening disease.

          "Well arguments libertarians would make are that everybody benefits from the protective effects of national security and police and firefighting but on issues like health care not everybody would necessarily reap the benefits despite paying into the system."

          You can use that same argument to disprove point. We pay in to a system in which you might not necessarily reap the benefits from such as Police and Firefighters. My taxes go to the Police even though i might never be directly affected by a criminal. My taxes go to the Fire department even though my house might never catch on fire. But what's important is the broader picture of what these institutions do. Police stop crime from spreading. Firefighters stop fire from spreading. And Universal Health Care keeps disease from spreading. It's important to not be selfish and only base our view on tax increases but to recognize a problem and find a solution that will benefit everyone as a whole.

        • Richandler, on 11/28/2007, -1/+2Health care does not protect your life. You being responsible does.
      • thcobbs, on 11/27/2007, -19/+14Despite what people think about America, hospitals cannot refuse emergency treatment for lack of payment/insurance.
        • DeviantDragon, on 11/27/2007, -2/+25But they can bill later for the said treatment.
        • Acolyte357, on 11/27/2007, -8/+3No kidding?!? /sigh
        • troy1of2, on 11/27/2007, -3/+18No but what they will do is after finding out you have no ability to pay claim you're okay and send you back home with maybe some pills if you're lucky. Happened to my brother-in-law several times before his daughter finally bullied a doctor into doing something and they found he was suffering from liver failure.
        • JoeVet, on 11/27/2007, -3/+23In the case of no insurance, hospitals will render life saving treatment only. They are not obliged to go beyond that. If you have an ailment that is not life threatening, they can and do show you the street. The argument that everyone can get help through emergency services is disingenuous and only makes those who argue against universal care feel better even though it is a lie.
        • div2n, on 11/27/2007, -3/+23So I walk in with some substantial but not life threatening cuts and abrasions and they won't treat me. Two days later after a nasty and deadly staph infection sets in they will?

          Doesn't this seem stupid to you?
        • DeviantDragon, on 11/27/2007, -5/+6Considering that staph infections are so common in hospitals, it's debatable whether or not you would've avoid staph had you been given treatment. I know it's not your point, but hey, just trying to make other commentary on the state of hospitals. On you main point though I'd say that it's hard to be able to predict the progression of a disease and if anybody who had something that could potentially be construed as life threatening than the system would be overwhelmed. For example. obesity is a risk to one's life but not immediate and not necessarily guaranteed.
        • heystoopid, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2Go ask the pop singer "Jewel" about that !
      • senatorpjt, on 11/27/2007, -10/+12I'm not too keen on having police forces or firefighters managed by the federal government. The federal military is a different creature because it's (supposedly) not to be used for domestic law enforcement (Posse comitatus). I also don't have a problem with socialized healthcare, but I do have a problem with it being implemented on a national level with no precedence. If states implemented socialized medicine, I'd be fine with that, and maybe after doing that for a while, something could be done on a federal level if need be (particularly if certain states can't implement it for reasons of excess poverty, etc). But, just trying to do this from the start on a federal level, in a place like the USA - which can't even figure out the Metric system - is doomed to failure.

        Besides, we already do have socialized medicine. Medicaid is subsidized by the federal government but administered by the states, and it works fairly well, if you're covered by it.
        • Logicexe, on 11/27/2007, -0/+7That's a good point, I'm not all that knowledgeable about the power structure between state and federal in the US so you may be right that it would be far better at least for now to just leave it up to the states that can afford it to demonstrate that it can work. What worries me is that the insurance companies would throw a ***** fit and lobby to get that sort of thing outlawed since it effectively kills their business in that state.
        • Jektal, on 11/27/2007, -1/+4I fully support universal/socialized health care, but it's hard to argue that the states should try it first. I suppose the only arguments I can think of are:
          A) With our government so commercially run, the financial burden on each state would be enormous, raising state taxes significantly compared to neighboring states and potentially driving citizens out. Done at a national level there would be more available funding per state and less consequences per state.
          B) Policing in-state residence rules would be a nightmare. The problems mentioned in sicko and the like of US citizens traveling to Canada to leech off their health care system would be nothing compared to people crossing state lines, making the costs to the state far higher.
          • diggduggjoe, on 11/27/2007, -0/+4Wisconsin tried to go with a universal package and they expect a 15% payroll tax on everyone. To imagine that you will not be a huge tax is insane. We cannot afford to put health care on the credit card. It must be paid for as we go. Also, health is not all about services, but more about how you live your life. Eat right, exercise and clean living will go much further than what any doctor can prescribe you. Look at all the food with MSG, Trans fat, tons of sugar and the general rejection of vegetables or fruits and I am amazed the health in the US in not much worse. My big question is why do you wish to make me pay for others choices? The only way to get people to care for themselves is to have the cost of being a 500lb, drunk, channel surfer be placed upon that person, not the physically fit.
        • TheOneKen, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1That is a good point, and is the beauty of having 50 states. We can try it 50 different ways and go with the one that works best. So far nothing resembling any of the health care plans by the Democrats have been previously tested.
      • ThinkBox, on 11/27/2007, -1/+5The idea that the government is in direct control of my health does not go well with my beliefs. If the government goes worse, and we need to do something about it, how many people do you think wont be able to help because the governments checks keep their parents alive, and if they want to change the government, those checks might stop...
      • FadieZ, on 11/27/2007, -4/+18Yet another Canadian anecdote for this thread.

        I just finished with 8 months of chemotherapy and medication and I'm glad to say I'm cured. The total cost for the drugs I took, excluding the chemotherapy, may well have exceeded 250,000$ That's a steep price for a college student, and I didn't even include chemo, surgery, MRIs, PETs, CTs (and weed). If I lived in America I don't think I'd be alive by now.
        • TheOneKen, on 11/28/2007, -2/+2You'd probably have health insurance due to the fact that you're still a student.
        • Richandler, on 11/28/2007, -2/+2And for your story we have millions just the same here in the US.
      • Halukard, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3A lot less people will need firefighters then health care during their life. Why do people accept to contribute as a society for the first but not the latter ?
      • Richandler, on 11/28/2007, -2/+1You aren't allowed to sue police officers who assault you in the US. Because they are from the government. You aren't allowed to sue the government when they let their land catch on fire and it burns down your house. If the police were private they would be held accountable for every mistake. If someone owned land that caught fire because of poor upkeep they could be sued. The government has no accountability because it is so big!
      • stuarttt, on 11/28/2007, -1/+1socialist police forces and a state run military force because both, at least here in American or ineffective and used incorrectly. The police are encouraged to fight crime that isn't there and are continuously recruiting ex military members into their ranks of bullies. As for the military, with very very few exceptions, they have only been used for foreign policy action and never for direct protection of the United States. Our military takes up roughly 59% of our taxes while occupying over one hundred countries. It, like the rests of the government, is a huge wasteful bureaucracy that is only getting bigger. Frankly, there are enough guns in this country, something like 1 for every 3 people, to scare off any country that would dare invade us. We don't need them.

        As for the firefighters, they don't bother me that much until they start starting fires just to put them out or something, but I would welcome privatization as well.
    • masamunecyrus, on 11/27/2007, -20/+14I like their 50% income tax...
      • SuperWinner, on 11/27/2007, -13/+10You wanna pay 50% tax rate in the US just to get a free 3 week vacation??? I'll never understand socialism... I want the government to take LESS from me, then maybe I could send myself on a vacation.
        • Enchantrem, on 11/27/2007, -6/+10I'd rather pay 50% income tax to get stress-free comprehensive medical treatment...

          But what you really don't get about my side of the fence is this: I'd rather pay 50% income tax to give *you* stress-free comprehensive medical treatment, too.
        • trentasaurus, on 11/27/2007, -2/+3What if I don't want in on the system?
        • tbydal, on 11/27/2007, -1/+9Only high incomes pay 50%. My mother is a doctor and pays 50%. Im a student and only work in the summers, and dont pay anything. Actually, the state pays me about 800 bucks a month to study. Which is also free.
        • jonnyboy1544, on 11/27/2007, -2/+0Get a job, Enchantrem.
      • Avataren, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2Americans pay much much more than this, but its an indirect tax. You'll notice it in reduced buying power caused by insane inflation and devaluation of the dollar. And most Norwegians pay around 30% in taxes, but its money well spent.
    • blast_flame, on 11/27/2007, -20/+38I as another libertarian oppose universal health care because besides the taxes it gives the government another reason to control you. If the government has to pay for your health care then logically some would argue they should be able to make you be healthier to save money. Fast food "rationing" or even bans, forced exercise routines the list goes on and on. basically the government will have an excuse to ban anything remotely dangerous or enjoyable.
      • DeviantDragon, on 11/27/2007, -5/+16Yes, this is true. Universal health care would give the government precedent to intervene in health issues for the individual and potentially play out into more direct infringements into peoples' lives. Note that i said potentially, not guaranteed. Please note that people.
        • clclark33, on 11/27/2007, -1/+12When have you ever known the U.S. government to NOT intervene when it had the precedent and/or perceived authority (Constitutional or not)?
        • Jektal, on 11/27/2007, -2/+5clclark33: When any corporate lobbyist wants them to stay out?
          • clclark33, on 11/28/2007, -1/+1Crap.... forgot about that one. ;)
      • had3l, on 11/27/2007, -4/+3How come? I don't see this happening in the Nordic European countries or in Canada. This belief that "It gives government precedent to do such and such" is usually BS. Does having a police force give precedent for government to arrest you without a warrant? Does having public school give the government a precedent to prohibit you from learning a different curriculum in a private school or from being home schooled? Did the creation of the Federal Government open a precedent for the establishment of an absolutist state?
        That's what the constitution is for, limiting what the government can and cannot do. Just because there is an universal health care system, it doesn't mean that the government has now a free pass to your body. You can have healthcare and still have a law that says "The government cannot impose healthcare or a healthy lifestyle on anyone that in sane consciousness denies it."
      • jaymzdean, on 11/28/2007, -3/+1I'm Libertarian myself, but your lack of personal responsibility is sickening. God forbid you ration your intake of fast food or engage in a little exercise. Listen to me. I'm tired of you fat-ass sickos raising MY insurance premiums.
        • blast_flame, on 11/29/2007, -0/+1I do ration by fast food (as a libertarian geek if I exercised my limbs would snap off :) ) but I oppose the government forcing people to do things. In a truly free market their would be insurance plan for people like you where you have to agree to those restrictions but get lower rates
      • mempko, on 11/28/2007, -2/+1If we had true direct democracy...this would be a non issue. Also, there is this thing called the bill of rights. National Initiative is the way to go baby. Vote mike gravel.
      • colobikeguy, on 12/02/2007, -0/+0I believe that the constitution constrains the government more than private industry. the point about sociiallist police state but not medicine is well taken. the really scary thing is the government hiring contractors who are NOT constrained by the constitution AND are doing the bidding of the government. no wonder why the politicos are jumping on the privatization bandwagon.
    • Bodhinature, on 11/27/2007, -13/+22As a libertarian, I believe in universal health care. Someone who values liberty and the wellbeing of his fellow citizens would naturally want his neighbors to be as healthy as possible so he can more freely commit to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." How is any of that possible if you are too sick? Its about quality of life. And, blast flame, none of those countries require you to be healthy, but doctors are required to educate you about being more healthy. The rest is up to you. Seems easy to me, try to stay healthy or treat myself like ***** because of some skewed definition of "personal liberty" and then I'm suddenly unable to take full advantage of my liberties because my sense of liberty said I can have bacon cheeseburgers until cardiac arrest at 40. Good thinkin'
      • DeviantDragon, on 11/27/2007, -5/+4From your comment you appear to be suggesting that universal health care entails also restricting one's diet because you feel that liberty to eat whatever is superfluous. Furthermore, libertarians by definition do not necessarily care about their fellow citizens in the way that they feel the government needs to proactively also care for said fellow citizens. I know you can be libertarian and have a few exceptions, but by saying that you value the wellbeing of your fellow citizens that is contradictory to the fundamental ideas of libertarianism as that mindset leads to endorsement of national education, welfare, and restrictions on harmful substances which go contrary to libertarianism.
        • emmeron, on 11/27/2007, -2/+8This is inaccurate, completely. The assumption you make, DeviantDragon, is that a libertarian is a heartless wretch. A libertarian does not believe the government should be involved in the care, but this does not mean that they say "to hell with everyone else." Care for others is simply not in the domain of the government. Do not confuse Ayn Rand Objectivism with Libertarianism. There are differences -- I am a raving liberal in my personal beliefs, but I am libertarian in politics. They are consistent: it is my right to care for others without the government telling me how.
          • DeviantDragon, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2This was my statement: Furthermore, libertarians by definition do not necessarily care about their fellow citizens in the way that they feel the government needs to proactively also care for said fellow citizens.

            they don't necessarily care about their fellow citizens IN THE WAY that they feel the GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO PROACTIVELY ALSO CARE FOR SAID FELLOW CITIZENS. I never doubted the altruism and kind heartedness of libertarians but I precisely touched upon the point that they don't feel it's necessarily the government's obligation also to provide this care. I'm not contradicting what you're saying at all.
        • Richandler, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1It can come to that though. If only one place is saying who gets denied and who gets approved you're in trouble if their is evidence you've eaten trans fats.
      • dan222555, on 11/27/2007, -2/+17You can't be a libertarian and be for universal health care. It's a complete contradiction of the beliefs that are central to the libertarian philosophy. And it's not just a minor contradiction like being Republican and being pro-life---because that's not a belief that's at the center of the Republican philosophy. Your contradiction is a complete impossibility and you obviously don't fully understand your own political beliefs.
        • BabyWookie, on 11/28/2007, -4/+2What do you American faux libertarians (neo-libertarians) really know about the real, classic Libertarianism?
          • dan222555, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1You'd have to ask an American faux libertarian I suppose. I don't claim to be a ibertarian at all. But it's not hard to see that universal health care does not fit with the libertarian philosophy one bit.
          • BabyWookie, on 11/28/2007, -1/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
          • dan222555, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1Is that supposed to be the classic Libertarianism? Because I think they refer to "classic Libertarianism" as simply "Libertarianism" and not "Libertarian socialism" which is some oxymoronic term invented to justify people whose political beliefs on the role of government are enormously inconsistent and all over the ***** map. Its not libertarianism and its not socialism so they should probably call it something else like "I-have-no-idea-what-the-role-of-government-is-supposed-to-be-ism".
      • dracostimpy, on 11/27/2007, -1/+5If you can accept universal anything that involves involuntarily taking money from one person to give to another, then you are at best a Libertarian, but definitely not a libertarian.
    • Pritchard, on 11/27/2007, -9/+6This doesn't challenge my views at all. Norway isn't the USA. I believe that Government has a certain role in our lives, and Norway's government isn't the right one for American citizens. However, it is interesting to see that Norway has excellent social benefits such as better prisons and social acceptance of people of all kinds. You don't get that here.
      • krummz, on 11/27/2007, -3/+0Yeah, really great benefits.. So it happens, that some criminals.. oops, sorry, simply people who aren't that affluent happen to go to Norway, commit some petty crime.. Because they don't want to work in their country for [Walmart's] 'no money' [Bowling for Columbine - Short History of the US, anyone? :D]
    • dukeochutney, on 11/27/2007, -5/+28i think im moving to norway screw the us
      • emmeron, on 11/27/2007, -1/+4Please, please... do this if you think they have it right!
        We need to stop trying to be something else and fix what is broken rather than attempt to become something else.
        • vade79, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2What if trying to be something else is what is right?
          • emmeron, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1To be very clear: socialism is not allowed by the Constitution, nor is it the intention. We are no where near what the Constitution demands of us. Getting back to the Constitution is a solution. The real reason we're so broken: the government regulations on health care make it so expensive.

            Further, why do you think the best doctors leave the socialist countries and move here or to the islands? They can be ***** doctors and still make their living in socialized systems. If you really think socialism works, go to where it is. Live it. Then decide what you think. Let the great American experiment continue -- even redirect back onto its path.
      • tomasII, on 11/27/2007, -0/+5Let us know how this works out for you.
      • raymore, on 11/27/2007, -2/+3"Downside: about 40-60% tax rate and the weather sucks."
    • BeyondGoodNEvil, on 11/27/2007, -10/+12Norway is the prime example of Nordic Europeans. That's why it has the highest living standard in the world, not from their system, but from the PEOPLE themselves. You can't have unarmed cops in Africa, for instance, nor South Central LA. Only when the people themselves are inherently good can you have a socialistic-type system that doesn't collapse from parasitism and overwaste.
      • kingraoul3, on 11/27/2007, -4/+7That's your analysis? They're inherently good? Did God make them that way?
        • nakani, on 11/27/2007, -1/+4Their culture doesn't reinforce ***** values
      • pkonink, on 11/27/2007, -1/+7I agree with everything you say except for the latent racism. That is where you find the balance between libertarianism and socialism - when you have an educated and committed populace, not a society of gangsters. I've long thought the core reason for US decadence is the worship of the dollar and the promotion of greed and materialism. Get rid of that and I'd wager a pretty large number of our "problems" would disappear.

        Where I seem to differ from you, though, is that I don't think someone's race has anything to do with these issues. Being Nordic European or African has nothing to do with it. I think a lucid and rational study of the history of world politics over the past several hundred years will show you why there is such disparity between, say, a Norwegian and a Nigerian. And it has nothing to do with genes.
        • TheOneKen, on 11/28/2007, -2/+2It is not genes that matter, it is culture. That culture may have been derived from past disadvantages, but you cannot deny that it is inferior.
    • billybibbit, on 11/27/2007, -4/+6hooray for socialism
    • scubasteve377, on 11/27/2007, -4/+16Something else that you need to be thinking about:
      Norway's massive oil reserves are nationalized, and it is for this reason, and this reason alone, that their system of government is viable. Norway is the third largest exporter of oil in the world (behind only Russia and Saudi Arabia), and has a population equal to roughly 1.3% of that of the United States. That means you have an incredible amount of wealth that is spread out over a relatively tiny population. This wealth, however, is not sustainable beyond the limitations of the finite oil supply and in the event that the oil runs out or the world moves to an alternative fuel source, the situation in Norway will change drastically and their socialist utopia will fall apart very quickly. Since we, here in the US, have neither a small population nor an extremely lucrative export, the Norway model could not possibly be viable here in the States, since those are the two things that the Norway model are completely dependent upon.
      • ac3boy, on 11/27/2007, -1/+5Well said. Dugg.
      • adooga, on 11/27/2007, -2/+1Why did you feel the need to re-post that whole paragraph?
      • JoeRW, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2In the comments of the video someone has pointed out that Norway has recently enabled itself to use money from funds they set up from oil profits to invest in property around the world. So that should last them a while longer than the life of their oil reserves.
      • Grummond, on 11/28/2007, -1/+3So, if oil is the only explanation of Norway's succes as a welfare society, what about Denmark? Or Sweden?
      • int19h, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1Yeah, how do you explain Sweden, Denmark and Iceland?
    • 1town, on 11/27/2007, -6/+3Michael Moore Hates America.

      I'm a norwegian, and Libertarianism is challenging my Norwegian way of life. I mean, It's kinda hard to complain when you are rated number 1...
      • colobikeguy, on 12/02/2007, -1/+0you are number 1? well... america ... ***** yea... is gonna have to take you down a notch brutha! dispatch carrier group to our new enemies!
    • rpetty, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2move there
  • whymanwhy, on 11/27/2007, -25/+484Look at the connection between the highest quality of life in the world and the list of countries with the highest taxes. Yes they pay a ton, but the folks in Norway don't have terribly corrupt people throwing all their taxes away like we do in the US.
    • DeviantDragon, on 11/27/2007, -42/+15I don't get your comparison. It would be valid if people in Norway paid were paying less than the US cause then your reasoning of corrupt waste of tax money would explain the deficiency. As it stands, it's like your saying the Norwegians don't mind paying a lot of taxes because at least their government isn't corrupt. The two are not normally related and if anything it seems to imply that corruption also lowers quality of life. Are you implying that more taxation decreases corruption? That Norwegian spending is inefficient? Cause that's counterintuitive. That being said, I'm not burying your comment but what you're saying are two things that don't make sense to me. It's like saying that there are more doctors in Norway, but at least Norwegians don't have so much medical fraud. What you're saying would make sense if the "but" was substituted out for an "and." Yeah I apologize for being nitpicky and writing a wall of text but it's late and I'm procrastinating. And if someone is going to bury me could they at least explain what I don't get about whymanwhy's statement?
      • igyigyigy, on 11/27/2007, -3/+53His point seems to be that in Norway people don't mind paying high taxes because their government provides high quality services to the people with that tax money.
        The implication being that the US wastes its tax money and thus generates resistence to the entire tax system
        • DeviantDragon, on 11/27/2007, -2/+14Hm, that conclusion does make more sense. You stated it more clearly than the original poster. An addition of "Yes they pay a ton but they don't mind as much because...like we do in the US." Thank you for clarifying if this indeed was the original posters original intent.
        • whymanwhy, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1IT WAS..
      • tablespork, on 11/27/2007, -2/+7He's saying that Norwegians pay a lot of taxes and as a result they have a higher quality of life. This may be due to more efficient spending/less corruption; I don't think he's implying that higher taxes cause less corruption.
        • DeviantDragon, on 11/27/2007, -2/+5No, I get that connection, it's the statement between being heavily taxed versus US corruption that i was questioning. On that issue i think igyigyigy hit the nail on the head really and clarified it.
      • seraph582, on 11/27/2007, -9/+9That's great. If norway had to govern 300 million people, their government systems would be chocked full of production-stifling bureaucracy as well! Use your damn heads!
        • hakr89, on 11/27/2007, -2/+8Well maybe there shouldn't be a government for 300 million people then.
        • houndeyex, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3Confederate much?
      • senatorpjt, on 11/27/2007, -0/+6Norway has a huge income tax, but I don't really know how their TOTAL tax burden compares to the US, with things like federal income tax, state income tax, local income tax, FICA, sales tax, registration tax, property tax, etc. The biggest difference to me is that we get nothing for the taxes we pay. The only thing that most people receive of any use from the federal government is roads.
        • DeviantDragon, on 11/27/2007, -2/+3And national defense and the education system and social security and medicare and medicaid and subsidies for certain people like farmers and pork barrel spending which only benefit the few. So it would seem that the US government already gives to it's people more than roads.
          • senatorpjt, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1I'm not in the army, collecting social security or medicaid, or a farmer. Neither are most people. And, federal taxes don't pay for schools.
      • troy1of2, on 11/27/2007, -0/+5Basically what he is saying is that yes the Norwegians are spending a lot more in taxes but that at least it is money well spent rather than being shoved into the gaping maw of greed that most of our tax money seems to disappear into.
      • skidmarks085, on 11/27/2007, -2/+3Logically speaking "But" is equivalent to "And".
        • DeviantDragon, on 11/27/2007, -1/+4"The baker's bread is tasty, but I will not buy it." vs. "The baker's bread is tasty, and I will not buy it."

          The first statement is a logically one was the speaker uses contradiction to signal his awareness of the first statement while explain his disregard of it. The second statement leaves readers questioning why one would not buy the bread if the bread is tasty as "and" implies a connection between the first clause and the second. Further oddities when using "and" include: "He killed over 9000 people and I like him" vs. "He killed over 9000 people, but I like him" The first statement seems accepting of the killings whereas the second distances the like of the person and the killings. Sorry for sounding like an English textbook in advance and I apologize for any incidental pedantry.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 11/27/2007, -7/+72They may pay more taxes, but they don't have other expenses that people have in the united states.
      Michael Moore focuses on the medical bill issue.

      It's two different views.
      Either people all help each other and everyone is protected.
      Or people contribute little, and pay their own way.

      Some rich people, and some stupid poor people might think they can save a few dollars paying only what they need, but if you get a raw deal or you develop serious medical problems... you're screwed.

      All the modernized democracies except the USA have everyone protecting everyone else. The American mantra is "Get rich or die trying."
      • FadieZ, on 11/27/2007, -12/+3That movie sucked btw.
      • richmondphotog, on 11/28/2007, -1/+1"Get rich or die trying", I think you hit on something there with that statement which is the American way of thinking. Other threads here talk about some things that don't make sense over there like, there are no gun laws and everyone has guns, but the murder rate is low, and there isn't a minimum wage law yet people do well. But the reason that those are true over there, is perhaps that it is not inherent that a corporation screws employees for profit as a way of expressing greed which is one part of primitive human nature. Maybe it is not true that having gun makes a person give in to their murderous instincts. Maybe the Norwegians just have a more advanced way of viewing the world and the people around them. They are Norwegians and do not think like us Americans.

        And maybe they do not have the huge gap in income between the haves and have nots, and experimenting by having them live in close proximity together.

        I am just throwing some thoughts out there.
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1It's simple. Are you a community first? or are your a group of individuals first?
          A group of individuals in in competition with everyone else. A community is in cooperation with everyone else.
    • FatherVic, on 11/27/2007, -16/+24There are so many other factors that come into play here.
      First of all, Norway has no real economy. Their Highest labor sector is services (around 75%). The income taxes are around 50% and the sales tax is 25%.
      Norway's entire economy is services. They are self-sustaining and at the same time isolationist... Something we are told is bad by the left.
      If we lived on an island with a small population whose only goal was to work for each other, it would work here, too. I think that it is neat that Norway is what it is. But America and other large countries can never be. There are too many people to take care of which means that the numbers of bad people grow too.
      • zeromous, on 11/27/2007, -1/+12They don't have an economy? Perhaps I'm mistaken but the Norwegian banking industry and oil industry is huge.
        • FatherVic, on 11/27/2007, -1/+6it only accounts for about 25% of the labor force. But it does make a lot of money because the industrial sector figures to about 50% of the GDP.
          Sounds like a win for Big Oil. It can produce a utopian society after all... :-)

          Let me give you some source:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Norway

          Don't forget that the cost of living is also about 30% higher in Norway than the US. Taxes do take their toll on inflation. Although, Norway has been lowering their taxes lately to help bolster the economy. Interesting...
        • BobOki, on 11/27/2007, -1/+4I'll take 30% higher to have support like that, not have to pay the EXTRA 35% off my paycheck for insurance, and I can be sure everyone is covered. Sounds to me like in reality, they pay less for more.
          • FatherVic, on 11/27/2007, -0/+5precisely... The country of Norway has a population of about 4.7 million people and a GDP of about $207 billion half of which comes from Oil. Who knows how much more money comes in from taxes. Small population with big investments. They can afford it. Now if only the Kroner would increase in value...
          • JoeRW, on 11/28/2007, -1/+1I think that if the Kroner wasn't pegged to the US$ it would have increased along the same rate as the Euro.
      • eternal464, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2the proportion of "bad people" in america compared to the rest of world is insane. just look at the gun crime statistics for a basic idea. thousands of percent worse here than anywhere else. there cops didnt even carry guns!
        • FatherVic, on 11/27/2007, -1/+1...because 32% of the citizens are armed.
      • bobartig, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2I don't know anything about Norway, but does their labor sector also include tourism? If so, then their economy makes more sense than people just handing each other money and paying high taxes (which would be immediately unsustainable).
        • FatherVic, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1...if not for the oil and banking revenues that the government brings in.
        • Jaleho, on 11/27/2007, -1/+0I thought about taking a trip to Norway, but I saw this ad for Kenya that convinced me otherwise... ;)
      • Grummond, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2How many times do we have to explain this, the tax rate isn't "about 50%", it's 50% tops. Most people pay less than that.
        Also, wages are alot higher, plus alot of the stuff you have to pay for in the US, is free in the welfare state.
        Student's get paid to get an education, which boosts the overall skill level and helps the economy in the long run.
        Education shouldn't be a privilege, it should be offered for anyone with the determination and the basic abilities to study on the higer levels.
        IT benefits the economy, and it's socially fair. THAT'S the true "land of opportunities".
        • diggduggjoe, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2We could have better education in the US, if it did not go up in costs faster than inflation. Even, state schools are over priced for they have spent the money on frills. Why are there not more online schools with cheaper tuition? Most every sector has shown great productivity increases and reduced costs as the computer age moved forward. However, education just gets pricier.

          Even at the grade school level, I see schools built that would have made all the schools I went to seem quaint.
        • JoeRW, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1Failing a university semester course is a waste of at least $2000, Im feeling it now, why didnt I choose more carefully!
    • Rotzooi, on 11/27/2007, -8/+12I pay taxes to see pot-smokers thrown in jail for life and to see innocent people convicted of murderer fried on the chair. America sucks. Bush sucks. Norway FTW
    • ICSU, on 11/27/2007, -4/+13Don't forget about correlations between quality of life and non-theism, another thing professional Christians don't want you to hear in the US.
    • jestin, on 11/27/2007, -1/+7I don't think it's crazy to say that the more a citizen pays in taxes, the more likely it will be for him to pay attention how the government spends it. Conservatives in the US try to keep taxes low enough that the average citizen doesn't care how the taxes are being spent.
    • airstrike, on 11/27/2007, -0/+12Try taking a look at Brazil and you might find your point proven wrong. I live here, I pay lots of taxes, and my government does not work properly.