Life expectancy is low because of the vast amount of people that eat 
     crappy food in the US.

Could it be that crappy food is sold starting from the school's cafeteria? Could it be that people don't have enough time to cook or eat at better restaurants?

     This to me just means that in those other countries, the government is 
     re-distributing wealth

     I would rather have the chance of making it big (or fail) than have the 
     government take most of it away with huge taxes and strict rules that 
     make it really difficult to have a successful business.
     ....
     Would you rather be happier or have less freedoms?

I'm not saying one is better than the other, but it seems to me that you've got no idea of how Consumerism works.

When you're sunken in debt, how much freedom do you have left?

Having a government is not such a bad thing. Even Americans used to embrace regulations, until Reagan and the "get the government off my back" idea spread out. Regulations are what help internalise in the price externalities such as these. You could tax unhealthy food, or subsidise healthy food. But somehow this is felt as a wound to people's freedom of doing anything they want, including eating crap if they want.

And freedom is all great: pity for those poor people who are so poor that their only choice is eating crappy food, and who can't afford preventive measures such as cancer screening.

However I do agree that government should play a role in regulating second hand smoke, as that is an instance of one individual using coercive force over another (making me inhale your smoke in public). Although even that issue is a slippery slope. Do we ban cars because their exhaust is toxic?

Could it be that crappy food is sold starting from the school's cafeteria? Could it be that people don't have enough time to cook or eat at better restaurants?"

Crappy school food does need to be changed. If people "don't have enough time" to cook or eat better, it's because they are lazy. You need to make time for these things.

"It could also mean any number of things ... like a middle-class that is better represented, or that the distribution of wealth is more efficient."

Either way, it's not something I want.

"Oh, the freedom argument :)

I'm not saying one is better than the other, but it seems to me that you've got no idea of how Consumerism works."

I do know how consumerism works. I also know the alternative is having the government make those choices for me.

"When you're sunken in debt, how much freedom do you have left?"

I have tons of freedom, because I am responsible with my money (IE: no debt). The people "sunken" in debt got that way because they spent money they didn't have and were foolish enough to do it on a credit card with huge APR.

There were many people during the housing crises that knowingly got a mortgage they couldn't afford because "the banks let them do it". When those same people couldn't pay their bills, they blamed those same banks. This is pure stupidity.

No. I'm suggesting that there will always be stupid and lazy people wherever you go. Many countries in Europe attempt to legislate it away by taking away by making choices for you (More social programs and restrictions on private alternatives). For some, this is fine, because they will be better off. For others, it just means less freedom and less choices.

In the US, we are free to make our own choices (and for some people, this means failing).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Press_Freedom_Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#2008_rankings

The US does better in economic freedom indices, not surprisingly, since there is much more market regulation in the EU:

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

What do you prefer, freedom of speech and democracy, or economic freedom?

Oh, lovely, we’re very racist, are we? Compared to what, USA? I hear the same anti-muslim, anti-mosque rants from Americans that I hear from fellow Swedes. You complain about illegal immigrants, we complain Eastern-Europeans, ”They’re here to take our jobs”. We complain about paying for refugees and asylum-seekers, you complain about... I don’t know, do you have that issue?

FYI: muslin isn't a race.

"You complain about illegal immigrants, we complain Eastern-Europeans, ”They’re here to take our jobs”. We complain about paying for refugees and asylum-seekers, you complain about... I don’t know, do you have that issue?"

I'm glad we agree that it's not the paradise that so leftists claim it to be.

Oh, I know, it’s a fabric.

I'm glad we agree that it's not the paradise that so leftists claim it to be.

So you really didn’t have a point, did you? Just wanted to blurt out a few insults?

Life expectancy may be low because people eat crappy food, but the eat crappy food because they are cheap. Sure it costs money for countries in the EU to push people towards better diet and you may object to that as a socialist government. But why should health care be only measured in terms of cures rather than prevention? I'd say both are important.

Second point. I perfectly agree with you, on the Gini coefficient and on other point. In EU countries there is a smaller gap. If you look at averages (what the original poster was talking about) the very skewed American distribution matters.

The USA has an excellent health care... if you can pay for it. It has an excellent education system... if you can pay for it. You can take plenty of holidays... if you don't need the extra money. And so on.

But the number of people that can afford those in the USA is so small that when you look at the average, most are worse off.

Do you not want to have wealth redistribution? Fine, don't. I don't live in the USA so it doesn't affect me. At your election vote whatever you prefer. But the article linked here was suggesting a different view of what may be a better balance. You like your way of living: suit yourself. shrug

People that don't have freedom and are stuck in one system don't know what they are missing.

"But the number of people that can afford those in the USA is so small that when you look at the average, most are worse off."

The majority of people (last I heard it was > 70%) have some form of health care in the US. Our health care system does need to be reformed, but to say the majority of the population has no health care is just wrong.

In how many countries have you lived in?

Having some form of health care is not the same as having good health care, and most definitely not the same as having the best health care that the USA provides.In fact, I am puzzled how you can quote a statistics like that with a straight face: you are saying that less than 30% of the population doesn't have any form of health care! That's A LOT!!!

A quick check online (I don't have time to find better data) gave me this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninsured_in_the_United_States

which quotes around 15% of the population WITHOUT insurance. And to those you may need to add all those whose insurances don't cover everything you may have.

14 million are de-facto insured - they are eligible for medicaid but have not bothered to sign up. If they ever require insurance, they can sign up and medicaid will pay for their treatment (medicaid doesn't care about preexisting conditions). Another 23 million are uninsured for 4 months or less, presumably because they declined COBRA.

Fun fact, from the wikipedia page: the states with the biggest percentage of uninsured people border Mexico. I wonder how much of the problem could be solved by enforcing immigration law.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/25/who-are-the-...