The USA are a backward country

@salmon_rushdie said in #8:

My state has free education, free healthcare, the least punishing drug laws on the planet, legal cannabis, legalized psychedelic therapy, euthanasia, utilizes 80% renewable energy, the most progressive paid leave in the country, strong environmental protections, and no sales tax.

Obv it could do better in some ways, but it does have some of the best laws in the world.

And we didn't lock all our citizens up for 2 years like some 'advanced' nations did.

And there is no abortion ban here or in many other states, the states that have bans are shitty conservative bible belt/southern states.

Also life expectancy in my area is 87 - so as high as just about anywhere in the world.

As per normal - most foreign people don't understand the landscape of this country, where there are regions larger than european countries that have better laws, and life quality - and many that are vastly lower (aka midwest and south - and cities out east) that bring down the averages immensely.

@salmon_rushdie your state sounds amazing. Maybe you should make secession from the rest of the country.

@FC-in-the-UK said in #12:

@salmon_rushdie your state sounds amazing. Maybe you should make secession from the rest of the country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_(independence_movement)

I never said they were advanced, before.
And advancement is not by wealth rather by qualities.
Any country is hardly advanced in that respect.

Its tantalizingly close to becoming a more reasonable country though, the problem largely has to do with gerrymandering in my opinion. If you look at public opinion polling across a range of issues - abortion, gun control, healthcare - the majority are firmly in favour of sensible restrictions in each area and a public healthcare option in the last case. I have no doubt there is a similar majority regarding the passage of bills dealing with climate change. But for several reasons, they do not have adequate representation to make those policies federal law.

The problem seems to be how that majority is unevenly represented in the senate in general - where seats are not proportional to the population, and also because gerrymandering plays a very damaging role in allowing leaders to continue to get elected who only reflect the narrow interests of a minority of voters. To add to that, from what I have heard in an interview with Andrew Yang, apparently a major problem in elections is that the most extreme parts of the base are much more motivated to vote than ordinary people, and so they wield disproportionate influence on who gets elected.

I think it is something that will be corrected over time though. I know the US has its fair share of crazies and fundamentalists, but the majority should win out in the end. Eventually things will be straightened out.

@ChessCricketV2 said in #6:

btw its "the USA is a backwards country"

no point in calling out another country when you dont have the grammar right lol

no hate btw

Grammar police intervention indicated...
"Is" and "are" are both acceptable in this case.
No capitalisation of letters beginning sentences.
Not a full-stop in sight.
Should be a comma between "btw"(sic) and "its(sic)", and "hate" and "btw"
"it's", not "its".
Use backward when in need of an adjective and backwards when in need of an adverb. (no grammatical breach there)
It's "don't", not "dont".
Only love here...

apparently a major problem in elections is that the most extreme parts of the base are much more motivated to vote than ordinary people

I'd say that's especially true for voting in primary elections (to pick Democrat and Republican candidates for the general election). The base of both parties comes out in force and tends to select nutty candidates unwilling to compromise. Congress is mostly broken.

America is (and has been for some time) bankrupt
In my opinion they will burn down the world before they will admit it
Which I hope is not true
But I doubt it ...

@FC-in-the-UK said in #9:

Dude the majority is against abortion bans.

Its a predominant christian country.

The loud ones are against the bans, but the silent majority voted for representatives that would vote for the bans.

And again, the federal government does not dictate if the abortion is legal or not (as of right now, because some months ago, the government dictated that was legal). The reversion of a law (dont recall the name) didnt make abortions illegal per say. It gave the option to the states to make their own policies about it

Not true. And besides, those "illegal" firearms don't appear out of nowhere.

The majority of the crimes are with illegal firearms. Criminals are not that dumb, they generally ensure to get a weapon that wont be traced back to them. The majority of school shootings are made by teenagers, that cant acquire guns legally.

Yes, the illegal firearms didnt appear of of nowhere, but arms are always being made for armies around the world, and many will reach the closest market.

It just happens that in the US are several manufacturers. But it is not uncommon to get weapons from overseas either.

That's silly. If that were the case, the gun-related crime rate should be lower in the US where guns are legal, but they are actually higher.

The crime rate always vary according many circumstances. For instance, the US is the country to receive more immigrants a year, and they dont always receive the best ones because illegal immigration is a thing.

Are you telling me that you forgot what happened in Europe when they received mass migrants?
Violence skyrocketed, and according to the little news that i got, sex related offenses went very high in England.

But also, crimes in the US increased a tenfold by radical leftist who for a period of time, confined the police to HQ's, endorsed by the same leftists governors. There are many factors to be taken into account, but overall, according to a couple of sources, the crime rates have decreased over the last 25 years. Its not a black or white situation.

That argument doesn't really makes sense. Research is only a tiny part of the healtcare spendings. What really costs money is paying for nurses, doctors, and supplies.

There is a very significant difference. Governemt involvement means everyone pays the healthcare system, regardless if you use it or not. But what that creates is a more bureocratic system that will have to pay for unions and whatnot, that is more expensive for x service than if you pay it yourself

If you compare it to the educational system, where the government basically forced banks to give credits to students that couldnt even pay, resulted in increased tuition costs.

Here in my country we also have "free healthcare" which is not free, as i pay my share with my paycheck, but it is also defficient, unions give nurses and doctors 2-3 extra days than usual per month (meaning that they need to hire even more personnel), tons of bonuses that you dont get in the private industry, and they only need to work half of the years i have to work in order to get their retirement pension. All payed by tax payers.

They have a different system. It works for them, because it does work. You may not like it, but it goes along with their principles of freedom. You can do as you please with your life, but you also need to deal with the consequences. If you do not put your sould in getting a lot of money (which you can in the US, unlike other coutnries), dont complain if you dont have money when things go south.

So they should just be left behind?

A few decades ago, India had an overwhelming analphabetization problem. I think it was close to 85% or so.
They ignored a good chunk of the population. Today, the country is like 50-50, but the ones who received education went up all the way until college. So half cant read, the other half have a degree. I dont like policy of leaving people behind, but tey are they, and it worked for them.

But back on topic, they are not really left behind, they are stuck with the state funded healthcare (which surprise surprise), its not the best. But the state doesnt own you anything that is not on the constitution or laws.

Not what I see on this graph en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita#/media/File%3ALife_expectancy_vs_healthcare_spending.jpg

That graph does look dramatic, but, the average lifespan is just a few years.

But if you check this one for instance https://www.brit-med.com/blog/top-5-countries-for-cancer-treatment/

Which are amongs the most expensive treatments, if not the most expensive one, they are in good shape.

Asides from the more philosophical issues that it raises about the purpose of education, this means unequal access to education.

Hmmm. The responsibility of the goverment is to give education to a certain level. I do not know until which level the governent in the US is obligated to, but overall, they do provide the service.

In my country of 120 million or so, half of the population live in rural areas, and only a handful of cities combined have like 50 million. The rest are cities with 200k inhabitants or so.

While the constitution states that the government has to provide education until high school. This is only true in the cities, with plenty of schools. In rural areas, only basic education is covered, if even.

So, when you put it on perspective, the US is doing great. They even provide education for illegal immigrants.

There is a reason its called "The American dream".