Yes, providing healthcare for 300 something million people is a very different task than providing for 30 something million people, same goes for infrastructure, same goes for education, etc.
Having significantly larger populations of various religions, cultures and immigration in general also poses significantly different challenges.
no it's not. again, relativity is everything. you have the same relative amount of people paying into it, you have the same relative amount of people providing it, you have the same relative amount of doctors, health care workers, IT guys, teachers, road workers, people at all levels of government making sure the machine is running, etc.
it's not like we have the exact same amount of people in government working for 1/10th of the population.
ha, okay. Canada has it all figured out...
So I guess the mayor of NYC's job is no more difficult than the major of Utica? Come on...
I'm pretty sure the mayor of NYC has a much bigger support system than the mayor of Utica does. It really is all relative.
You didn't answer my question
You weren't asking me, were you?
You felt the need to chime in with an opinion on the question...
But look, how hard the job of mayor of Utica vs mayor of NYC is totally irrelevant. It is not a logical comparison, since cities don't get one more mayor for every 100,000,000 people added to the population, and the healthcare system doesn't have a head of state. That is not the case when it comes to the healthcare system. While Canada isn't even close to having it all figured out as you "accuse", our healthcare system is certainly better just because it isn't one massive human rights violation. I believe this in the depths of my soul. There are other countries with universal healthcare that is better than Canada's. Good for them! We should all look to them as examples. But If there are 10 times the people there is 10 times the funding, 10 times the hospitals, 10 times the doctors, 10 times the clinics, etc etc etc, just like HFD said.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Yes, providing healthcare for 300 something million people is a very different task than providing for 30 something million people, same goes for infrastructure, same goes for education, etc.
Having significantly larger populations of various religions, cultures and immigration in general also poses significantly different challenges.
no it's not. again, relativity is everything. you have the same relative amount of people paying into it, you have the same relative amount of people providing it, you have the same relative amount of doctors, health care workers, IT guys, teachers, road workers, people at all levels of government making sure the machine is running, etc.
it's not like we have the exact same amount of people in government working for 1/10th of the population.
ha, okay. Canada has it all figured out...pretty cute you guys are up there...
So I guess the mayor of NYC's job is no more difficult than the mayor of Utica? Come on...
Not sure where that came from. I never implied canada has it all figured out. Im just tired of americans downplaying our successes for reasons of nothing but flawed math.
I was never talking about the leadership job being exactly the same. Of course there's more pressure, internally and externally the larger the centre. But the mayor of NY has an exponentially largerstaff than the mayor of Utica.
And Obama is not personally administering your healthcare, is he? I was talking about the administration of services by your government, which is vastly larger than the canadian one, based on population density.
Its like a company. It grows with your customer base to suit the demand. Sure, you still have 1 CEO, but instead of one office manager, you might now have 5 VP's.
Yes, providing healthcare for 300 something million people is a very different task than providing for 30 something million people, same goes for infrastructure, same goes for education, etc.
Having significantly larger populations of various religions, cultures and immigration in general also poses significantly different challenges.
no it's not. again, relativity is everything. you have the same relative amount of people paying into it, you have the same relative amount of people providing it, you have the same relative amount of doctors, health care workers, IT guys, teachers, road workers, people at all levels of government making sure the machine is running, etc.
it's not like we have the exact same amount of people in government working for 1/10th of the population.
Of course. Seems obvious, right?
So you think a school district with 100,000 kids runs the same as a school district with just 500 kids? They definitely don't, but have the same ratio of teachers, students and admin.
Los Angeles school district has 700,000 students and 45,000 teachers. Its all relative, it just the same as my current district of about 6,000 students and a few hundred teachers. You cant possibly think that. And why would government be exempt from the headache of a larger body?
Yes, providing healthcare for 300 something million people is a very different task than providing for 30 something million people, same goes for infrastructure, same goes for education, etc.
Having significantly larger populations of various religions, cultures and immigration in general also poses significantly different challenges.
no it's not. again, relativity is everything. you have the same relative amount of people paying into it, you have the same relative amount of people providing it, you have the same relative amount of doctors, health care workers, IT guys, teachers, road workers, people at all levels of government making sure the machine is running, etc.
it's not like we have the exact same amount of people in government working for 1/10th of the population.
Of course. Seems obvious, right?
So you think a school district with 100,000 kids runs the same as a school district with just 500 kids? They definitely don't, but have the same ratio of teachers, students and admin.
Uh, no, I have specifically said that it is not run the same way. That's the whole point.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Yes, providing healthcare for 300 something million people is a very different task than providing for 30 something million people, same goes for infrastructure, same goes for education, etc.
Having significantly larger populations of various religions, cultures and immigration in general also poses significantly different challenges.
no it's not. again, relativity is everything. you have the same relative amount of people paying into it, you have the same relative amount of people providing it, you have the same relative amount of doctors, health care workers, IT guys, teachers, road workers, people at all levels of government making sure the machine is running, etc.
it's not like we have the exact same amount of people in government working for 1/10th of the population.
Of course. Seems obvious, right?
So you think a school district with 100,000 kids runs the same as a school district with just 500 kids? They definitely don't, but have the same ratio of teachers, students and admin.
Uh, no, I have specifically said that it is not run the same way. That's the whole point.
I guess we just disagree on the government part. If we can agree if a school or company is 10 times bigger then it wont be run the same I don't now why that wouldn't apply to government. Schools are funded based on student population, so in theory a school 10 times bigger should get 10 times the funding right? But yet they are not run the same, and if a school is too small there are wasted expenses and if it gets too big there are hidden expenses other schools don't have. And I don't think a country 10 times bigger will have 10 times the hospitals, doctors, funding etc because of similar problems. In most cases, as a country grows and changes so does the crime rate, unemployment, immigration, education is affected. Not everything will grow at the same rate, and if Canada exploded and was 10 times bigger in 10 years from now there would not be an even distribution of growth in all aspects, which changes how things are run.
Yes, providing healthcare for 300 something million people is a very different task than providing for 30 something million people, same goes for infrastructure, same goes for education, etc.
Having significantly larger populations of various religions, cultures and immigration in general also poses significantly different challenges.
no it's not. again, relativity is everything. you have the same relative amount of people paying into it, you have the same relative amount of people providing it, you have the same relative amount of doctors, health care workers, IT guys, teachers, road workers, people at all levels of government making sure the machine is running, etc.
it's not like we have the exact same amount of people in government working for 1/10th of the population.
Of course. Seems obvious, right?
So you think a school district with 100,000 kids runs the same as a school district with just 500 kids? They definitely don't, but have the same ratio of teachers, students and admin.
Uh, no, I have specifically said that it is not run the same way. That's the whole point.
I guess we just disagree on the government part. If we can agree if a school or company is 10 times bigger then it wont be run the same I don't now why that wouldn't apply to government. Schools are funded based on student population, so in theory a school 10 times bigger should get 10 times the funding right? But yet they are not run the same, and if a school is too small there are wasted expenses and if it gets too big there are hidden expenses other schools don't have. And I don't think a country 10 times bigger will have 10 times the hospitals, doctors, funding etc because of similar problems. In most cases, as a country grows and changes so does the crime rate, unemployment, immigration, education is affected. Not everything will grow at the same rate, and if Canada exploded and was 10 times bigger in 10 years from now there would not be an even distribution of growth in all aspects, which changes how things are run.
Again, I'm not saying they are run the same way. I am saying that a universal healthcare system would NOT be run the same way in the US because of the population difference. It would be run in a way so that it accommodates the bigger population. I don't know why you keep making this unrelated comparisons when you can just talk about the healthcare system directly. A universal healthcare system is perfectly possible in the USA. It wouldn't be run the same way as in Canada (or wherever). It would still be the same type of system - universal healthcare - run in the best way to accommodate the population, which is totally viable because the available funding, infrastructure, administration, etc would be proportional to the population. There is absolutely no reason why the USA couldn't have a universal healthcare system, besides the fact that private health insurance companies have a stranglehold on the American population, and want to keep making money by providing the least amount of healthcare they can possibly get away with. Why anyone would defend this kind of system is totally beyond me. The insurance companies have done a GREAT job convincing a large number of Americans that universal healthcare is not to their benefit for this, that, and the other reason .... which is, of course, a complete falsehood. They just don't want to go out of business.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Yes, providing healthcare for 300 something million people is a very different task than providing for 30 something million people, same goes for infrastructure, same goes for education, etc.
Having significantly larger populations of various religions, cultures and immigration in general also poses significantly different challenges.
no it's not. again, relativity is everything. you have the same relative amount of people paying into it, you have the same relative amount of people providing it, you have the same relative amount of doctors, health care workers, IT guys, teachers, road workers, people at all levels of government making sure the machine is running, etc.
it's not like we have the exact same amount of people in government working for 1/10th of the population.
Of course. Seems obvious, right?
So you think a school district with 100,000 kids runs the same as a school district with just 500 kids? They definitely don't, but have the same ratio of teachers, students and admin.
Uh, no, I have specifically said that it is not run the same way. That's the whole point.
I guess we just disagree on the government part. If we can agree if a school or company is 10 times bigger then it wont be run the same I don't now why that wouldn't apply to government. Schools are funded based on student population, so in theory a school 10 times bigger should get 10 times the funding right? But yet they are not run the same, and if a school is too small there are wasted expenses and if it gets too big there are hidden expenses other schools don't have. And I don't think a country 10 times bigger will have 10 times the hospitals, doctors, funding etc because of similar problems. In most cases, as a country grows and changes so does the crime rate, unemployment, immigration, education is affected. Not everything will grow at the same rate, and if Canada exploded and was 10 times bigger in 10 years from now there would not be an even distribution of growth in all aspects, which changes how things are run.
Again, I'm not saying they are run the same way. I am saying that a universal healthcare system would NOT be run the same way in the US because of the population difference. It would be run in a way so that it accommodates the bigger population. I don't know why you keep making this unrelated comparisons when you can just talk about the healthcare system directly. A universal healthcare system is perfectly possible in the USA. It wouldn't be run the same way as in Canada (or wherever). It would still be the same type of system - universal healthcare - run in the best way to accommodate the population, which is totally viable because the available funding, infrastructure, administration, etc would be proportional to the population. There is absolutely no reason why the USA couldn't have a universal healthcare system, besides the fact that private health insurance companies have a stranglehold on the American population, and want to keep making money by providing the least amount of healthcare they can possibly get away with. Why anyone would defend this kind of system is totally beyond me. The insurance companies have done a GREAT job convincing a large number of Americans that universal healthcare is not to their benefit for this, that, and the other reason .... which is, of course, a complete falsehood. They just don't want to go out of business.
I didn't talk about healthcare specifically because the topic of population difference didn't start out as a discussion of health care. It was brought up as a discussion about the difference in polarization, specifically how the States has a larger polarization than Canada. The explanation offered and that I agreed with was that population size has a lot to do with the polarization. From there I was told land mass had nothing to do with it, even though we specifically referenced population size. And that's what I was referring to when I talk about differences, and not healthcare. Thus why I never brought up healthcare, I'm not sure who did or why in reference to this discussion about polarization.
sorry I missed it (aside from highlights) it sounds like this debate has humbled some folks, the next one will be like the shoot-out at the O.K corral I'm sure.
think about this though...Trump is so new to the political arena that finding dirt on him is nearly impossible(aside from business deals and past wives), he hasn't had the time or experience's to do or get caught doing anything like Hillary has. Emails and servers, Benghazi, political lies to the people, adversaries' dyeing before court dates or hearings, this woman has been around the block .....30 years ! and to tell you the truth I almost have to admire her and Bill because who else can pull off murder, blatant bold faced lies and a number of crimes other people went to prison for, this is the face of professional politics' and she's running for POTUS ! she is the Gangsters Gangster, the capo di tutti capi, and to lie to the faces of the mothers who lost their son's in Benghazi....that's a true criminal with no remorse or compassion.
now as far as trump goes, who knows ? time will tell.
Godfather.
What? Some people really need to learn to move on. Benghazi was dealt with. 7 times to be specific. There is no evidence that Clinton did anything illegal. The email were deals with by the FBI. They didn't have the evidence to support charges. What the hell do you need to keep hearing Clinton say I won't do it again? There's nothing else to say about it. And I'd love for you or anyone to produce a shred of evidence that shows bill or Hillary murdered or had anyone murdered. Some of the most absurd notions I've ever heard.
There is plenty of dirt that can be dug up on trump. He's a sexist, racist, shrewd business man. All of the dirt has been dug up. What have you been watching/reading for the past year?
you're right they haven't been arrested for murder....they're good at it ! LOL !!!
I'll bet these topic's are brought up at the next debates though, it's all about character and trust in this election and Hillary has a lot of skeletons in her political closet you have to admit, I'm not saying Trump will be a great president (maybe he will ? who knows) but I am saying Hillary's past and dishonest way's could very well be here to haunt her through out this election process.
I really think Trump will win the race....but if Hillary win's her entire term will be filled with constant doubt because of the accusations and "facts" that have been brought up about her and Bill, think about it, Bill has slept with mode women then Gene Simmons and is famous for a BJ in the oval office not to mention those famous cigars, and true or not the body count thing is here, the smashed blackberries and I-pads so really is this the kind of family Americans want to represent them ???? I know Trumps no angel and probably even smoked one of those cigar's but his public track record is squeaky clean compared to the Clinton's and that's why he will probably win.
Godfather.
Why do you keep bringing up who bill has fucked? What does that matter? Like I said, show one piece of evidence that the Clinton's murdered anyone. You trusted every politician you voted for? It's a joke that you think trump is any more honorable and trustworthy than Clinton. Trump thumpers realky need to get used to the idea that Trump has 0 chance of winning. If last night doesn't show you that, you are going to be very disappointed.
personally non of that matters to me, I'm just saying that it does matter to many Americans and it WILL affect her vote count.
Godfather.
I hope it matters to Americans that Trump is being accused of raping a 13 year old. You know, in addition to cheating on his wives.
...been thinking about this post (from 2016) a lot lately....
Comments
I was never talking about the leadership job being exactly the same. Of course there's more pressure, internally and externally the larger the centre. But the mayor of NY has an exponentially largerstaff than the mayor of Utica.
And Obama is not personally administering your healthcare, is he? I was talking about the administration of services by your government, which is vastly larger than the canadian one, based on population density.
Its like a company. It grows with your customer base to suit the demand. Sure, you still have 1 CEO, but instead of one office manager, you might now have 5 VP's.
www.headstonesband.com
They definitely don't, but have the same ratio of teachers, students and admin.
Los Angeles school district has 700,000 students and 45,000 teachers. Its all relative, it just the same as my current district of about 6,000 students and a few hundred teachers. You cant possibly think that. And why would government be exempt from the headache of a larger body?
In most cases, as a country grows and changes so does the crime rate, unemployment, immigration, education is affected. Not everything will grow at the same rate, and if Canada exploded and was 10 times bigger in 10 years from now there would not be an even distribution of growth in all aspects, which changes how things are run.