On birth control, GOP shoots itself in the foot
On birth control GOP takes on losing issue
By Carl Hiaasen
CHiaasen@MiamiHerald.com
In their unflagging efforts to distance themselves from mainstream America, Republican leaders have gleefully seized upon a social issue that’s guaranteed to backfire in November:
Birth control.
If you’re mystified, you’re not alone. Ignoring years of public-opinion polls, the GOP is boldly marching backwards into the 1960s to question whether contraception is a legitimate health-care benefit.
The target, as always, is President Obama. He issued an executive mandate requiring that free birth control be included in health plans provided to employees of schools, charities and hospitals connected to religiously affiliated institutions.
Although the mandate excludes churches, Roman Catholic bishops are in a huff, saying the contraception provision violates the First Amendment and “freedom of religion.â€
Never mind that Obama softened the rule so that the insurance companies, not the employers, will pay for the coverage. Never mind that many employees served by these healthcare plans don’t share the same religion as the institute for whom they work.
Republican strategists see the controversy as another opportunity to bash Obama’s healthcare reforms, and also to rile up white Christian evangelicals who don’t like the president anyway.
As political miscalculations go, this one could be epic. If you’re looking for a sure way to galvanize female voters against your own party, attack birth control.
Whom does the administration’s mandate help? Teachers, secretaries, nurses, lab techs â€" working women who can’t afford, or don’t choose, to get pregnant.
Yet to hear the yowls of outrage, you’d think these hospitals and schools were being ordered to round up their workers and force-feed them birth-control pills against their will..........
Obviously, limiting the availability of birth control is an unpopular idea in this country. That it’s getting traction in Congress illustrates how completely the Republican Party has been carjacked by its bug-eyed, right-wing fringe.
Even as national women’s groups mobilize to support the administration, the GOP presidential candidates are piping up to denounce the birth-control benefit as a sinister plot against religion. Among the alarmed is Mitt Romney, who as governor of Massachusetts uttered not a whisper of objection to a state law that was virtually identical to the president’s mandate.
You can be certain that the fall election won’t hinge on social issues that were settled in the minds of voters decades ago. If the Republicans stay on this sorry, dead-end path, Obama’s task is clear:
Ice the champagne.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/02/18/v-fullstory/2647452/on-birth-control-gop-shoots-self.html#storylink=fbuser#storylink=cpy
I could not agree with this article more. It won't just galvanize female voters it will keep responsible Republicans from voting at all.
Quote from: FayeforCure on February 20, 2012, 03:40:29 PM
Never mind that Obama softened the rule so that the insurance companies, not the employers, will pay for the coverage. Never mind that many employees served by these healthcare plans don’t share the same religion as the institute for whom they work.
As someone on a different thread said earlier, bull hockey! In my Republican point of view, the president got this absolutley wrong when he first tried to force those opposed to this for religious reasons to include contraception and abortion services in mandatory health insurance. But, to say he softened it and fixed it by putting the onus on the insurance company is tantamount to saying, "I didn't put the bullet in the gun, therefore I could not be responsible for killing someone with it." Or, for a Jewish person to say, "I just bought the ham sandwich, I didn't make it, so how can it be a problem?"
The Democrats are playing games with this topic plain and simple. They are pulling at strings that they think will rile people up the most. For a group of people who are supposedly tolerant -- is that not the definition of liberal? -- you sure seem to take issue with folks who believe different than you.
I have said it before and I will say it again, if you cannot dig $10 a month out of your pocket to purchase the pill or a box of condoms, you probably should not be having sex.
But, if you want to go on and say the pill should be free, then why are my allergy pills not free? Are my allergies legitimate health issues? If I have an attack, I am susceptible to getting a sinus infection, that sinus infection could turn into bronchitis, bronchitis cold turn into pneumonia, and that could mean a lengthy hospital stay. On the other hand, if I have unprotected sex, I could inseminate a woman, that woman could become pregnant, the pregnancy will lead to medical expenses which could include a hospital stay. How is that different than my allergies? Why is it that you think your health issue is more important than mine? Pneumonia is potentially lethal.
Instead of spouting how this is a women's rights issue, how about you tell us exactly how it is a rights issue. And, while you are at it, explain how my allergies are not an issue of my right to be healthy.
So if you employer is a Jehovah's Witness, your health insurance shouldn't have to cover blood transfusions? If your employer is a Muslim your insurance shouldn't cover the pig valve for your ailing heart?
We are talking about employers here, not churches. If they object so much they can just stop paying for their employees health insurance and raise their salaries so that the employees can buy their own.
There are lots and lots of mandated coverages in health insurance policies; most from the State level, but some from the Federal level.
Quote from: Dog Walker on March 01, 2012, 01:49:24 PM
So if you employer is a Jehovah's Witness, your health insurance shouldn't have to cover blood transfusions? If your employer is a Muslim your insurance shouldn't cover the pig valve for your ailing heart?
We are talking about employers here, not churches. If they object so much they can just stop paying for their employees health insurance and raise their salaries so that the employees can buy their own.
There are lots and lots of mandated coverages in health insurance policies; most from the State level, but some from the Federal level.
DW, in answer to your questions, government should not be telling employers what they must include, period. Health insurance is not a right, it is a fringe benefit. Always has been. So, for the government to step in and say you must include this or you must cover that, is an overreach of their power.
When I worked as a contractor, I supplied my own insurance and I chose what I wanted covered. If an employee does not like the coverage an employer provides, it is that employees right to ff ind another employer who does cover the things he or she wants.
In the overall picture, and within the bounds of this post, your examples fail the litmus. But, to be fair, so do mine. Because if my employer doesn't cover my allergy medicine and another does, I have the right to move on. If you want an employer that covers birth control and abortion services, do not work for the Catholic church. Kind of a simple solution...
If I had my way, employers/employment would not be involved with health insurance in the first place. But it sounds like it is just making it easier to rook peole out of coverages and services to save a buck. The insurance companies already do plenty of that without giving the employer even more leeway to do the same.
Quote from: Gonzo on March 01, 2012, 02:35:15 PM
Quote from: Dog Walker on March 01, 2012, 01:49:24 PM
So if you employer is a Jehovah's Witness, your health insurance shouldn't have to cover blood transfusions? If your employer is a Muslim your insurance shouldn't cover the pig valve for your ailing heart?
We are talking about employers here, not churches. If they object so much they can just stop paying for their employees health insurance and raise their salaries so that the employees can buy their own.
There are lots and lots of mandated coverages in health insurance policies; most from the State level, but some from the Federal level.
DW, in answer to your questions, government should not be telling employers what they must include, period. Health insurance is not a right, it is a fringe benefit. Always has been. So, for the government to step in and say you must include this or you must cover that, is an overreach of their power.
When I worked as a contractor, I supplied my own insurance and I chose what I wanted covered. If an employee does not like the coverage an employer provides, it is that employees right to ff ind another employer who does cover the things he or she wants.
In the overall picture, and within the bounds of this post, your examples fail the litmus. But, to be fair, so do mine. Because if my employer doesn't cover my allergy medicine and another does, I have the right to move on. If you want an employer that covers birth control and abortion services, do not work for the Catholic church. Kind of a simple solution...
So, Gonzo, if you can't answer the argument, shift the terms of the debate to another subject i.e. whether or not employers should be involved in health insurance. 10th grade trick.
Now you are arguing for a completely unregulated health insurance market? Fat chance of that working. You would soon find that buried in the bacteria font print on the back of the last page of your contract that the only thing covered was developing an in-grown toenail at the time of the full moon.
All the regulations on the insurance industry didn't come about for no reason, but from abuses by the industry.
Quote from: vicupstate on March 01, 2012, 03:10:24 PM
If I had my way, employers/employment would not be involved with health insurance in the first place. But it sounds like it is just making it easier to rook peole out of coverages and services to save a buck. The insurance companies already do plenty of that without giving the employer even more leeway to do the same.
I would like to see employers completely out of the insurance picture, too. If the government wants to provide it as a form of welfare to its citizens, then that is what they should try to pass through legislation. If the majority of the people in the US are for a government system, I won't like it, but I will live with it.
Employers are far too diverse a group for this to be administered fairly. Sure, perhaps the mega-corporation can handle the cost with no problem. Many small businesses (which everyone loves to say they are the champion of) have a very difficult time covering the cost. They typically don't have HR departments who can allocate significant chunks of time researching the various plans and making sure they are getting the best deal.
Quote from: dougskiles on March 01, 2012, 05:38:27 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on March 01, 2012, 03:10:24 PM
If I had my way, employers/employment would not be involved with health insurance in the first place. But it sounds like it is just making it easier to rook peole out of coverages and services to save a buck. The insurance companies already do plenty of that without giving the employer even more leeway to do the same.
I would like to see employers completely out of the insurance picture, too. If the government wants to provide it as a form of welfare to its citizens, then that is what they should try to pass through legislation. If the majority of the people in the US are for a government system, I won't like it, but I will live with it.
Thank you...........we are already living with it as close to 60% of us already have government provided healthcare insurance:
Medicare for the elderly and disabled
Medicaid for the poor
Tricare for the military
Federal and state government workers insurance
I want it too since I don't fall in any of the above categories.
I want to buy into Medicare.
Saying that the debate over the HHS mandate is about access to contraception is akin to saying that the American revolution was fought over tea.
Let's face it the President set the Republicans up with this one they took the bait and now there will be a democratic house as well as the senate and chief executive.
Quote from: JeffreyS on March 01, 2012, 09:20:38 PM
Let's face it the President set the Republicans up with this one they took the bait and now there will be a democratic house as well as the senate and chief executive.
Just now I pictured a dollar bill attached to a string...a really big, obvious string.
In other words, you're probably right.
Quote from: Gonzo on March 01, 2012, 12:37:06 PM
Quote from: FayeforCure on February 20, 2012, 03:40:29 PM
Never mind that Obama softened the rule so that the insurance companies, not the employers, will pay for the coverage. Never mind that many employees served by these healthcare plans don’t share the same religion as the institute for whom they work.
As someone on a different thread said earlier, bull hockey! In my Republican point of view, the president got this absolutley wrong when he first tried to force those opposed to this for religious reasons to include contraception and abortion services in mandatory health insurance. But, to say he softened it and fixed it by putting the onus on the insurance company is tantamount to saying, "I didn't put the bullet in the gun, therefore I could not be responsible for killing someone with it." Or, for a Jewish person to say, "I just bought the ham sandwich, I didn't make it, so how can it be a problem?"
The Democrats are playing games with this topic plain and simple. They are pulling at strings that they think will rile people up the most. For a group of people who are supposedly tolerant -- is that not the definition of liberal? -- you sure seem to take issue with folks who believe different than you.
I have said it before and I will say it again, if you cannot dig $10 a month out of your pocket to purchase the pill or a box of condoms, you probably should not be having sex.
But, if you want to go on and say the pill should be free, then why are my allergy pills not free? Are my allergies legitimate health issues? If I have an attack, I am susceptible to getting a sinus infection, that sinus infection could turn into bronchitis, bronchitis cold turn into pneumonia, and that could mean a lengthy hospital stay. On the other hand, if I have unprotected sex, I could inseminate a woman, that woman could become pregnant, the pregnancy will lead to medical expenses which could include a hospital stay. How is that different than my allergies? Why is it that you think your health issue is more important than mine? Pneumonia is potentially lethal.
Instead of spouting how this is a women's rights issue, how about you tell us exactly how it is a rights issue. And, while you are at it, explain how my allergies are not an issue of my right to be healthy.
Wow typical Republican response. I don't recall abortion as part of the equation either. But what does that matter. To promote your side you would say anything.
Quote from: Gonzo on March 01, 2012, 02:35:15 PM
Quote from: Dog Walker on March 01, 2012, 01:49:24 PM
So if you employer is a Jehovah's Witness, your health insurance shouldn't have to cover blood transfusions? If your employer is a Muslim your insurance shouldn't cover the pig valve for your ailing heart?
We are talking about employers here, not churches. If they object so much they can just stop paying for their employees health insurance and raise their salaries so that the employees can buy their own.
There are lots and lots of mandated coverages in health insurance policies; most from the State level, but some from the Federal level.
DW, in answer to your questions, government should not be telling employers what they must include, period. Health insurance is not a right, it is a fringe benefit. Always has been. So, for the government to step in and say you must include this or you must cover that, is an overreach of their power.
When I worked as a contractor, I supplied my own insurance and I chose what I wanted covered. If an employee does not like the coverage an employer provides, it is that employees right to ff ind another employer who does cover the things he or she wants.
In the overall picture, and within the bounds of this post, your examples fail the litmus. But, to be fair, so do mine. Because if my employer doesn't cover my allergy medicine and another does, I have the right to move on. If you want an employer that covers birth control and abortion services, do not work for the Catholic church. Kind of a simple solution...
Only a Republican would call Health Insurance a fringe benefit. (That's how you feel about health care too, I'm sure.) If you can't afford coverage you want people to just do without. You guys don't give a damn if people die or not. God it makes me sick. I'm so glad for you that you are not in need. Because your group would let you die in street and probably laugh about it.
We should be able to buy health insurance individually with the same tax break our employer gets when we go thru them, or just do away with the employer tax break. Also we should be able to purchase plans across state lines and not have to purchase coverage we don't want or need.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on March 02, 2012, 07:31:30 AM
We should be able to buy health insurance individually with the same tax break our employer gets when we go thru them, or just do away with the employer tax break. Also we should be able to purchase plans across state lines and not have to purchase coverage we don't want or need.
I would agree but since both parties are beholden to the Insurance industry, it unfortunately will never happen.
Quote from: JeffreyS on March 01, 2012, 09:20:38 PM
Let's face it the President set the Republicans up with this one they took the bait and now there will be a democratic house as well as the senate and chief executive.
Then finally we can start repairing the aweful damage caused by the republicans over the past 10 years.
Quote from: avonjax on March 01, 2012, 11:55:27 PM
Quote from: Gonzo on March 01, 2012, 02:35:15 PM
Quote from: Dog Walker on March 01, 2012, 01:49:24 PM
So if you employer is a Jehovah's Witness, your health insurance shouldn't have to cover blood transfusions? If your employer is a Muslim your insurance shouldn't cover the pig valve for your ailing heart?
We are talking about employers here, not churches. If they object so much they can just stop paying for their employees health insurance and raise their salaries so that the employees can buy their own.
There are lots and lots of mandated coverages in health insurance policies; most from the State level, but some from the Federal level.
DW, in answer to your questions, government should not be telling employers what they must include, period. Health insurance is not a right, it is a fringe benefit. Always has been. So, for the government to step in and say you must include this or you must cover that, is an overreach of their power.
When I worked as a contractor, I supplied my own insurance and I chose what I wanted covered. If an employee does not like the coverage an employer provides, it is that employees right to ff ind another employer who does cover the things he or she wants.
In the overall picture, and within the bounds of this post, your examples fail the litmus. But, to be fair, so do mine. Because if my employer doesn't cover my allergy medicine and another does, I have the right to move on. If you want an employer that covers birth control and abortion services, do not work for the Catholic church. Kind of a simple solution...
Only a Republican would call Health Insurance a fringe benefit. (That's how you feel about health care too, I'm sure.) If you can't afford coverage you want people to just do without. You guys don't give a damn if people die or not. God it makes me sick. I'm so glad for you that you are not in need. Because your group would let you die in street and probably laugh about it.
Health insurance is not a right. It is a perk. Always has been. If it were not a perk, your employer would not pay a portion of it. Health insurance actually became legally part of the wages workers could nogotiate for as illustrated in the following quote:
QuoteUnder the 1942 Stabilization Act, Congress limited the wage increases that could be offered by firms, but permitted the adoption of employee insurance plans. In this way, health benefit packages offered one means of securing workers. In the 1940s, two major rulings also reinforced the foundation of the employer-provided health insurance system. First, in 1945 the War Labor Board ruled that employers could not modify or cancel group insurance plans during the contract period. Then, in 1949, the National Labor Relations Board ruled in a dispute between the Inland Steel Co. and the United Steelworkers Union that the term "wages" included pension and insurance benefits. Therefore, when negotiating for wages, the union was allowed to negotiate benefit packages on behalf of workers as well. This ruling, affirmed later by the U.S. Supreme Court, further reinforced the employment-based system.
Before the insurance industry grew to its current mammoth proportions, health insurance was relatively unknown. If you were sick, you went to the local doctor, paid him (or her) -- with produce or lifestock if that's all you had -- and went on with your life. The key here is you -- not an insurance company -- paid for your own medical care. Indeed, the insurance companies did not even want to offer health insurance as indicated in the below quote:
QuoteAccording to The Insurance Monitor, "the opportunities for fraud [in health insurance] upset all statistical calculations.... Health and sickness are vague terms open to endless construction. Death is clearly defined, but to say what shall constitute such loss of health as will justify insurance compensation is no easy task" (July 1919, vol. 67 (7), p. 38).
The health insurance industry and overly liberal social policies have created the current climate of medical costs that are spiraling out of control. Take a look at a detailed hospital bill, you will see outrageous charges. How does $10 for a single dose of Tylenol strike you? Hospitals charge it because they know the insurance company will pay it and because they have to cover the cost of carrying so many people who will not pay their medical bills. Outrageous prices for medical services lead to skyrocketing insurance premiums. Where does it end?
In your plea to save the poor and under-insured, where do you draw a line? Should everybody be able to get health care for any ailment at any time and at any medical facility? Who will pay for the services rendered in this manner? Will you? Are you satisfied with ever increasing health care costs due to the huge number of people who burden the system without ever paying for it? Why are you and I responsible for those who refuse to work, act irresponsibly in order to obtain welfare benefits, and needlessly burden the system?
If you can answer those questions I will be satisfied. But, I will wager that you cannot (or will not).
Take into account that I am not referring to those who are truly in need. There are those who require special care because of things that have happened to them through no fault of their own. Taking care of those people -- those who are not scamming the system -- is and should be the responsibility of society. Those who are taking advantage of the system are not.
Reference: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/thomasson.insurance.health.us (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/thomasson.insurance.health.us)
Gonzo, the Republican Health Care Plan is to Don't get Sick, and if you do get sick, Die Quickly.
Don't be a burden on the fittest, in Darwin's survival of the fittest (THAT is the the Republican motto: You're On Your Own...........YOYO)
Quote from: Gonzo on March 02, 2012, 08:48:47 AM
Quote from: avonjax on March 01, 2012, 11:55:27 PM
Quote from: Gonzo on March 01, 2012, 02:35:15 PM
Quote from: Dog Walker on March 01, 2012, 01:49:24 PM
So if you employer is a Jehovah's Witness, your health insurance shouldn't have to cover blood transfusions? If your employer is a Muslim your insurance shouldn't cover the pig valve for your ailing heart?
We are talking about employers here, not churches. If they object so much they can just stop paying for their employees health insurance and raise their salaries so that the employees can buy their own.
There are lots and lots of mandated coverages in health insurance policies; most from the State level, but some from the Federal level.
DW, in answer to your questions, government should not be telling employers what they must include, period. Health insurance is not a right, it is a fringe benefit. Always has been. So, for the government to step in and say you must include this or you must cover that, is an overreach of their power.
When I worked as a contractor, I supplied my own insurance and I chose what I wanted covered. If an employee does not like the coverage an employer provides, it is that employees right to ff ind another employer who does cover the things he or she wants.
In the overall picture, and within the bounds of this post, your examples fail the litmus. But, to be fair, so do mine. Because if my employer doesn't cover my allergy medicine and another does, I have the right to move on. If you want an employer that covers birth control and abortion services, do not work for the Catholic church. Kind of a simple solution...
Only a Republican would call Health Insurance a fringe benefit. (That's how you feel about health care too, I'm sure.) If you can't afford coverage you want people to just do without. You guys don't give a damn if people die or not. God it makes me sick. I'm so glad for you that you are not in need. Because your group would let you die in street and probably laugh about it.
Health insurance is not a right. It is a perk. Always has been. If it were not a perk, your employer would not pay a portion of it. Health insurance actually became legally part of the wages workers could nogotiate for as illustrated in the following quote:
QuoteUnder the 1942 Stabilization Act, Congress limited the wage increases that could be offered by firms, but permitted the adoption of employee insurance plans. In this way, health benefit packages offered one means of securing workers. In the 1940s, two major rulings also reinforced the foundation of the employer-provided health insurance system. First, in 1945 the War Labor Board ruled that employers could not modify or cancel group insurance plans during the contract period. Then, in 1949, the National Labor Relations Board ruled in a dispute between the Inland Steel Co. and the United Steelworkers Union that the term "wages" included pension and insurance benefits. Therefore, when negotiating for wages, the union was allowed to negotiate benefit packages on behalf of workers as well. This ruling, affirmed later by the U.S. Supreme Court, further reinforced the employment-based system.
Before the insurance industry grew to its current mammoth proportions, health insurance was relatively unknown. If you were sick, you went to the local doctor, paid him (or her) -- with produce or lifestock if that's all you had -- and went on with your life. The key here is you -- not an insurance company -- paid for your own medical care. Indeed, the insurance companies did not even want to offer health insurance as indicated in the below quote:
QuoteAccording to The Insurance Monitor, "the opportunities for fraud [in health insurance] upset all statistical calculations.... Health and sickness are vague terms open to endless construction. Death is clearly defined, but to say what shall constitute such loss of health as will justify insurance compensation is no easy task" (July 1919, vol. 67 (7), p. 38).
In your plea to save the poor and under-insured, where do you draw a line? Should everybody be able to get health care for any ailment at any time and at any medical facility? Who will pay for the services rendered in this manner? Will you? Are you satisfied with ever increasing health care costs due to the huge number of people who burden the system without ever paying for it? Why are you and I responsible for those who refuse to work, act irresponsibly in order to obtain welfare benefits, and needlessly burden the system?
It's all been figured in other western nations......no need to reinvent the wheel. But, I'm sure you want to keep the complex patch work of health insurance in the US that leaves 50 million uninsured and another 50 million underinsured...........because why bother with a simpler, better system such as the ones in western Europe where everyone is covered.
Faye - Everyone is covered in Europe? Really, is Europe where you want to take this thread? With Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Italy all teetering on default of their governmental debt, paid for through the great socialistic views? Countries vowing to destroy the euro as their default currency?
Do you really want to go there?
All of the countries you just named have better health care outcomes by all metrics and lower health care cost than we do in the US. Healthcare isn't what gave them their current problems.
By any measure the most "socialist" of the European countries, the Scandinavian ones are doing just fine economically and about every other way. Read the reports about the Finnish school system sometime.
Quote from: mtraininjax on March 02, 2012, 04:39:19 PM
Faye - Everyone is covered in Europe? Really, is Europe where you want to take this thread? With Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Italy all teetering on default of their governmental debt, paid for through the great socialistic views? Countries vowing to destroy the euro as their default currency?
Do you really want to go there?
Yeah, baby! Because we totally wouldn't want to end up like some "socialist" European style country!
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index
111 countries and territories were included in the 2005 Quality of Life Index.[1]
Rank Country or territory Quality of Life Score
(out of 10)
1 Ireland 8.333
2 Switzerland 8.068
3 Norway 8.051
4 Luxembourg 8.015
5 Sweden 7.937
6 Australia 7.925
7 Iceland 7.911
8 Italy 7.810
9 Denmark 7.797
10 Spain 7.727
11 Singapore 7.719
12 Finland 7.618
13 United States 7.615
14 Canada 7.599
15 New Zealand 7.436
16 Netherlands 7.433
17 Japan 7.392
18 Hong Kong 7.347
19 Portugal 7.307
20 Austria 7.268
Legend: "Socialist" Strongholds LOL U JELLY?
2009 Happy Planet Index
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Planet_Index
Rank Country HPI
1 Costa Rica 76.1
2 Dominican Republic 71.8
3 Jamaica 70.1
4 Guatemala 68.4
5 Vietnam 66.5
6 Colombia 66.1
7 Cuba 65.7
8 El Salvador 61.5
9 Brazil 61.0
10 Honduras 61.0
11 Nicaragua 60.5
12 Egypt 60.3
13 Saudi Arabia 59.7
14 Philippines 59.0
15 Argentina 59.0
16 Indonesia 58.9
17 Bhutan 58.5
18 Panama 57.4
19 Laos 57.3
20 China 57.1
21 Morocco 56.8
22 Sri Lanka 56.5
23 Mexico 55.6
24 Pakistan 55.6
25 Ecuador 55.5
26 Jordan 54.6
27 Belize 54.5
28 Peru 54.4
29 Tunisia 54.3
30 Trinidad and Tobago 54.2
31 Bangladesh 54.1
32 Moldova 54.1
33 Malaysia 54.0
34 Tajikistan 53.5
35 India 53.0
36 Venezuela 52.5
37 Nepal 51.9
38 Syria 51.3
39 Burma 51.2
40 Algeria 51.2
41 Thailand 50.9
42 Haiti 50.8
43 Netherlands 50.6
44 Malta 50.4
45 Uzbekistan 50.1
46 Chile 49.7
47 Bolivia 49.3
48 Armenia 48.3
49 Singapore 48.2
50 Yemen 48.1
51 Germany 48.1
52 Switzerland 48.1
53 Sweden 48.0
54 Albania 47.9
55 Paraguay 47.8
56 Palestinian Authority 47.7
57 Austria 47.7
58 Serbia 47.6
59 Finland 47.2
60 Croatia 47.2
61 Kyrgyzstan 47.1
62 Cyprus 46.2
63 Guyana 45.6
64 Belgium 45.4
65 Bosnia and Herzegovina 45.0
66 Slovenia 44.5
67 Israel 44.5
68 South Korea 44.4
69 Italy 44.0
70 Romania 43.9
71 France 43.9
72 Georgia 43.6
73 Slovakia 43.5
74 United Kingdom 43.3
75 Japan 43.3
76 Spain 43.2
77 Poland 42.8
78 Ireland 42.6
79 Iraq 42.6
80 Cambodia 42.3
81 Iran 42.1
82 Bulgaria 42.0
83 Turkey 41.7
84 Hong Kong 41.6
85 Azerbaijan 41.2
86 Lithuania 40.9
87 Djibouti 40.4
88 Norway 40.4
89 Canada 39.4
90 Hungary 38.9
91 Kazakhstan 38.5
92 Czech Republic 38.3
93 Mauritania 38.2
94 Iceland 38.1
95 Ukraine 38.1
96 Senegal 38.0
97 Greece 37.6
98 Portugal 37.5
99 Uruguay 37.2
100 Ghana 37.1
101 Latvia 36.7
102 Australia 36.6
103 New Zealand 36.2
104 Belarus 35.7
105 Denmark 35.5
106 Mongolia 35.0
107 Malawi 34.5
108 Russia 34.5
109 Chad 34.3
110 Lebanon 33.6
111 Macedonia 32.7
112 Republic of the Congo 32.4
113 Madagascar 31.5
114 United States 30.7
115 Nigeria 30.3
I just love it........the republican response is soooo predictable.
You talk about Europe and the Pavlov response as dictated by Fox News (yes, I do sometimes flip trough Fox news when I'm channel surfing), is an immediate referral to Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Italy.
Never mind the very prosperous western European and Scandinavian countries...........because we wouldn't want to be pointing to nations that really care about We, The People, as the US once professed to do. :o
Or nations that have an even more thriving entrepreneurial environment than the US, now would we?
No, we have to put our blinders on and vehemently continue to pretend that the US is the ONLY thriving Capitalistic nation. To do this we have to call successful Western European nations the dreaded "socialistic" word, and ignore that they have thriving capitalistic economies.
Even China has a thriving capitalistic economy, as has Brazil and all the other BRICS countries.
America the exceptional is quickly declining to the bottom of the heap among advanced nations, but Republicans want to stay in denial and are helped to do so with the Faux News propaganda.