PDA

View Full Version : The best place in the world to live?



Synapse
January 25 2013, 03:33:42 AM
An idea that circles in my head fairly regularly is "Given my choice of places to live, where would I go?"

_assume for this question_ that you can find a job paying a happy wage there, whetever it is.

I want to hear what criteria FHCers use for deciding the best places to live.

Asking myself this question....the immediate answer is that I have no clue, even as an American who travels more than my compatriots ( I leave the country one to three times a year, most don't go at all in a decade).

The secondary answer is that I'm interested in the best place for:
Government protection of civil rights
Low Corruption
Education Quality
Pretty Scenery

Traditionally the thing all children are told in America is that we have the best in all these categories. It's taken as gospel by many. Having traveled a bit and learned a bit about good education and government I've started to wonder if our losses in the area of civil rights over the last 10 years means we aren't on the top of that list...certainly not anymore.

For example, looking for data on this post I went to the state dept website on human rights. They track data for EVERY COUNTRY EXCEPT THE US.

Who is now?

So, if you were given your choice to live anywhere you want with a decent wage and job, where would it be?

Edit: Its a bad sign when you get a negrep for a thread before you get a reply, right? Just because its slightly less controversial than normal doesn't mean it wouldnt be trolled to death in general disc.

AmaNutin
January 25 2013, 05:29:53 AM
I have wanted to live in Finland based off of articles, and reports on the country's aspects.

Not only is it my grandparent's home nation, I like the recipes that I've eaten (which are from Finland), I have wanted to live somewhere that it's not too dense of a population, and the Aurora Borealis isn't too far off.
I know Finland does a lot of peacekeeping work, they have a very small military, and mainly have a large pool of reserves. Their legislature (from what I've followed) is more willing to compromise between party lines and policies in order to pass bills for the people.

I recall that Finland's education was somewhere right behind South Korea and Japan, and that they faced less cram schooling or testing as a means of deriving success.
The country has hundreds of lakes and is heavily covered in forest, and affords many opportunities for cross-country skiing.

definatelynotKKassandra
January 25 2013, 05:49:57 AM
I have wanted to live in Finland based off of articles, and reports on the country's aspects.

Not only is it my grandparent's home nation, I like the recipes that I've eaten (which are from Finland), I have wanted to live somewhere that it's not too dense of a population, and the Aurora Borealis isn't too far off.
I know Finland does a lot of peacekeeping work, they have a very small military, and mainly have a large pool of reserves. Their legislature (from what I've followed) is more willing to compromise between party lines and policies in order to pass bills for the people.

I recall that Finland's education was somewhere right behind South Korea and Japan, and that they faced less cram schooling or testing as a means of deriving success.
The country has hundreds of lakes and is heavily covered in forest, and affords many opportunities for cross-country skiing.

Also mosquitoes and alcoholism

Synapse
January 25 2013, 05:58:20 AM
Sounds pretty convincing to me. Finland seems high on my list as well but I was also curious about nontraditional first worlders like Singapore or South Korea, or even potentially one of the small island nations. I know iceland had a banking collapse and that's not great but does that make them incompetent people? Probably not...

Anyway why would one choose finland over norway, sweeden, or denmark?

GeromeDoutrande
January 25 2013, 06:53:41 AM
I would probably also pick one of Norway, Sweden, Finland and in that order I think, but the order is not based on much more than anecdotal stuff and the people from those countries that I have met. Norway is likely the wealthiest of those nations I would think (have not checked that though).

What exactly do you mean by "government protection of civil rights", could you give some examples that are important to you?

cheeba
January 25 2013, 06:59:26 AM
Surely it all depends on personal tastes.

Sure the scandenavian countries are wealthy, peaceful and successful - but they are also small. For me, I love being in exciting, chaotic cities where you can feel the energy - London, New York, Bangkok, Singapore, Hong Kong. Id love to also visit San Paolo, Shanghai etc.

ValorousBob
January 25 2013, 07:25:59 AM
I'd probably choose Istanbul, Prague or Buenos Aires just for the cultural aspect.

Also according to a segment on 60 Minutes, Denmark is the happiest country on the planet, so maybe there.

Synapse
January 25 2013, 08:40:00 AM
I would probably also pick one of Norway, Sweden, Finland and in that order I think, but the order is not based on much more than anecdotal stuff and the people from those countries that I have met. Norway is likely the wealthiest of those nations I would think (have not checked that though).

What exactly do you mean by "government protection of civil rights", could you give some examples that are important to you?

I could post the whole US bill of rights but the truth is I'm mostly interested in a subset.

In particular I'd like to move somewhere with strong protections against:
1. asassination
2. indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial
3. unbounded search and seizure
4. censoring of speech and assembly
5. torture

The US has engaged in all of these except maybe torture against its own citizens in the last 10 years. If not against citizens then certainly against noncitizens in all those cases.

Even though only some of it directly affects me (search and seizure, speech and assembly) and its highly unlikely that my actions would pull me into the view of those who do any of these, I dont like that the chance has gone from "definitely wont happen to me" to "probably wont happen to me". I'll be the first to admit it's more on principle and moral grounds than personal safety grounds.

Tie that to some beautiful scenery, lack of corruption, and good schools for my kids and thats a powerful incentive to come visit.

GeromeDoutrande
January 25 2013, 08:56:25 AM
You could take a look at the freedom house reports for very rough summary descriptions of what you are describing. Here is Norway as an example:

http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2012/norway

Most of the things you are interested in will be under "political rights and civil liberties" I would assume.

You can find a nlist of countries at the bottom of this page:

http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2012


You may also want to note the description of the United States if you are concerned about that in order to assess the suitability of this resource for your purposes:

http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2012/united-states

Hast
January 25 2013, 10:20:40 AM
Since Scandinavia and Norway came up, I guess I can answer some of your questions.

Norway is a nice place to live. Safe, great safety net and wealthy. However, as a foreigner you will be hard pressed to find work unless you speak Norwegian (or Swedish/danish) and can understand Norwegian relatively well. This goes for a lot of the technical areas of employment as well, although it is probably easier to get a job as a phd. in something oil related when you only speak english then say teaching at a high school, which would be near impossible. Housing, especially in the four main cities (Stavanger, Oslo, Trondheim and Bergen - ordered after expensiveness) is retardedly expensive. And many foreign economists claim that we have a housing bubble that has not popped yet. I bought my apartment in 2009 and since then it has risen in value somewhere between 25 and 30 percent.

The climate is also very unforgiving if you are used to central european, or even british weather. During winter it is cold and dark and a lot of people seem to find that hard to deal with. And then there is the fact that in many cases, we are at the end of the world.

And because we live in a small country, many claim that corruption is rife. Not the "you give me money and you'll move to the front of the line" corruption, but more the unintended "since I know you, you get the job in front of the more qualified person" sense.

Synapse
January 25 2013, 10:21:54 AM
Wrong thread. derp

Pacefalm
January 25 2013, 11:44:50 AM
x

Wrong thread?

OT: I have always wanted to go to Australia. The weather in Holland is terrible

Synapse
January 25 2013, 11:46:55 AM
Yes wrong thread, thanks for spotting it.

Didnt australia pass their own "even more extreme" patriot act? or am I getting that mixed up?

Jack Dant
January 25 2013, 12:01:58 PM
I could post the whole US bill of rights but the truth is I'm mostly interested in a subset.

In particular I'd like to move somewhere with strong protections against:
1. asassination
2. indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial
3. unbounded search and seizure
4. censoring of speech and assembly
5. torture

I think all of Western Europe qualifies, but if you are serious, you should look for more mundane stuff.

The level of bureaucracy and it's close cousin, corruption. Quality of health services. Quality of law enforcement and justice. Those are just a few things that will affect your day to day life more than most of the above.

Cassiuss
January 25 2013, 12:13:21 PM
As a Canadian, if I had to choose a country other than my own to be born in, just so that my blind patriotism doesn't cloud things, I would have to choose the Netherlands, Denmark, or Norway. Three very awesome countries, who are doing things right from what I have read.

Only issue is they have some very fucked up languages. :)

Zeekar
January 25 2013, 12:17:20 PM
New zealand/Canada/Norway/Sweden/Denmark/Finland

In no order of preference.

Synapse
January 25 2013, 12:25:57 PM
You could take a look at the freedom house reports for very rough summary descriptions of what you are describing. Here is Norway as an example:

http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2012/norway

Most of the things you are interested in will be under "political rights and civil liberties" I would assume.

You can find a nlist of countries at the bottom of this page:

http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2012


You may also want to note the description of the United States if you are concerned about that in order to assess the suitability of this resource for your purposes:

http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2012/united-states

At least they have a report on the US. More than one can say for the state dept lists.

They still list the USA in the top of 7 ranking pools, despite acknowledging torture, assasination, permanent imprisonment, and spying without cause. With a straight face.

Does that say more about the state of the rest of the world in comparison, or just the privileged brand status enjoyed by the USA? Or both?

In order to consider meaningful comparisons I'd have to read all the reports for the rank 1 countries in detail, it seems.

GeromeDoutrande
January 25 2013, 12:29:40 PM
"As of 2010, grants awarded from the US government accounted for most of Freedom House's funding;[4] the grants were not earmarked by the government but allocated through a competitive process. Freedom House is widely regarded as a reliable source. Nonetheless, some critics have accused Freedom House’s reports of bias or of promoting U.S. government interests abroad."

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_House

Synapse
January 25 2013, 12:33:15 PM
Thanks Zeekar for mentioning New Zealand. Cant believe I forgot it.




I could post the whole US bill of rights but the truth is I'm mostly interested in a subset.

In particular I'd like to move somewhere with strong protections against:
1. asassination
2. indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial
3. unbounded search and seizure
4. censoring of speech and assembly
5. torture

I think all of Western Europe qualifies, but if you are serious, you should look for more mundane stuff.

The level of bureaucracy and it's close cousin, corruption. Quality of health services. Quality of law enforcement and justice. Those are just a few things that will affect your day to day life more than most of the above.

Jack, as I mentioned its more principled than practical. However I chose corruption as a proxy for quality of law enforcement, reasoning that I could only list so many things and good law enforcement was needed to keep corruption in check.

I'm not too concerned with health systems as moving pretty much anywhere in the first world from the USA will arguably on par or better normal healthcare. I'm not in the market for super expensive surgeries and I want a longer happier lifespan...based on that alone I shouldnt be in the US.

We're discussing human rights because it's fun and people asked about it. I think "most beautiful scenery" is likely to to go to new zealand or switzerland without much contest...anyone disagree? Especially since I'm partial to mountains since I was born in them...

GeromeDoutrande
January 25 2013, 12:38:46 PM
http://1ms.net/beautiful-large-falls-in-norway-107988.html

Cassiuss
January 25 2013, 01:16:06 PM
Thanks Zeekar for mentioning New Zealand. Cant believe I forgot it.




I could post the whole US bill of rights but the truth is I'm mostly interested in a subset.

In particular I'd like to move somewhere with strong protections against:
1. asassination
2. indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial
3. unbounded search and seizure
4. censoring of speech and assembly
5. torture

I think all of Western Europe qualifies, but if you are serious, you should look for more mundane stuff.

The level of bureaucracy and it's close cousin, corruption. Quality of health services. Quality of law enforcement and justice. Those are just a few things that will affect your day to day life more than most of the above.

Jack, as I mentioned its more principled than practical. However I chose corruption as a proxy for quality of law enforcement, reasoning that I could only list so many things and good law enforcement was needed to keep corruption in check.

I'm not too concerned with health systems as moving pretty much anywhere in the first world from the USA will arguably on par or better normal healthcare. I'm not in the market for super expensive surgeries and I want a longer happier lifespan...based on that alone I shouldnt be in the US.

We're discussing human rights because it's fun and people asked about it. I think "most beautiful scenery" is likely to to go to new zealand or switzerland without much contest...anyone disagree? Especially since I'm partial to mountains since I was born in them...

West coast of Canada, if you're into mountain views. We literally have everything here, as the 2nd largest country on the planet we can boast such things. Now mind you, I don't think we could compete with New Zealand and their temperate climate cause we go from -40 to +35 depending on the season and where you live.

http://goo.gl/9zCjh <--- pics

lubica
January 25 2013, 01:24:15 PM
Aside from the fucking retarded (like criminally incompetent and lacking a sense of modesty) politicians over here, I really do like my own country best (Slovenia), alternatively Netherlands/Amsterdam - went solo backpacking there like 7-8 years ago and I felt like I could really enjoy living there after less than 30 mins from stepping out of the central train station, luggage still in hand. Canada, New Zealand and possibly Japan are also on my list, but I've never been to those places, so that's just a pretty image in my head.

Equium Duo
January 26 2013, 11:41:16 AM
I've always had good experiences in Sweden and always hear good things about the Scandinavian countries in general. Hell how they treated that nutter who killed those kids is a testament to to their attitudes to justice and I think likely indicative of their attitudes to other things.

My top ranked qualities I look for in a country:

Free healthcare
Free education
Generous spending on infrastructure (trains/buses/roads etc)
and a fairly recent development for me, protesters not being labelled as terrorists by their governments / governments afraid of their people..etc

LoudSpeakly
January 26 2013, 09:55:08 PM
Didnt australia pass their own "even more extreme" patriot act? or am I getting that mixed up?

Dunno about that...

Some of our capitals have rated highly in "Most Livable Cities" lists of yesteryear. Because of their disparate locations throughout the continent, you can probably find one with a climate that suits you.

But like Hast said with housing prices in Norway, we're in a bubble of our own. The major capitals like Sydney and Melbourne are crazy expensive for what they are.

Personally, I'm a fan of the cold and the mountains, so Scandinavia calls me greatly. Grass is greener etc...

Sacul
January 27 2013, 09:22:26 AM
I have travelled a lot, especially 2000-2008, and came to the conclusion that The Netherlands is a very good country to live in on all fronts.
It would be paradise if it wasnt for the weather.

Also cant have it all, if you accept that and just go where you want, you said money doesnt equate in the op's idea, when you want live will be good.

Completely speaking from a very privileged position offcourse; White, male, highly educated, born in NW-Europe, good looking (well no huncback or one leg). Depending where you live this is of importance.

Hast
January 27 2013, 09:30:22 AM
I have travelled a lot, especially 2000-2008, and came to the conclusion that The Netherlands is a very good country to live in on all fronts.
It would be paradise if it wasnt for the weather.

Also cant have it all, if you accept that and just go where you want, you said money doesnt equate in the op's idea, when you want live will be good.

Completely speaking from a very privileged position offcourse; White, male, highly educated, born in NW-Europe, good looking (well no huncback or one leg). Depending where you live this is of importance.

I went to dutchland and found it similar to Norway. One pro and one con: weather is better, but the food is atrocious.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

Hast
January 27 2013, 09:31:10 AM
Discarding all geographical differences of course. But the people etc.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

Sacul
January 27 2013, 11:45:19 AM
C on the food hastler, altho we have a wide variety of international cuisine available it really is meh in general.

Traditional dutch cuisine isnt something i grew up with but i do know its extremely dull. Not many ingredients, no interesting combinations, lacking in herbs and spices, speed cooking seems to be a dutch invention (if people are in the kitchen >40 minutes its considered a long cooking session and food is consumed in 15m).

Easy to disregard the negatives because everything under the sun is easily available. Except guns.

Rakshasa The Cat
January 28 2013, 03:02:57 AM
I moved from the country ranked first on UN's list of best countries to live in, to the one ranked second.

If you're a normal person who wants to live a middle-class life then Norway is probably the best place, however if you're highly skilled in a profession then moving somewhere else is always a good option. Though the idea of growing up in a country like Japan isn't really something that appeals to me.

Vincent Death
January 28 2013, 05:18:11 AM
I was also curious about nontraditional first worlders like Singapore or South Korea,

South Korea is a nice enough place to live, but it's no paradise on Earth. Not much crime, generally polite and tolerant people, good infrastructure/utilities etc. Also 12+ hours schooldays for your kids, mandatory overtime for you, bosses who can never be wrong because they are above you socially, needing to know how old/how many steps from you relationally someone is before adressing them or else you'll piss them off etc. Also don't expect great treatment if youre black or from elsewhere in Asia. Terrible drivers, congested roads etc etc.

Get out of Seoul (or even to the outskirts of Seoul) and you'll see some pretty third world shit, older Koreans especially haven't caught on to this Asian Tiger bs.

A lot of Koreans suffer from alcohol problems, mental health/developmental issues are happily ignored so the neighbours don't know your kid is a retard, high suicide rates...

I enjoy living and working here, but I would never recommend the place as a holiday destination or anything like that. Beautiful scenery once your out in the countryside, though.

Zeekar
January 28 2013, 11:41:27 AM
I moved from the country ranked first on UN's list of best countries to live in, to the one ranked second.

If you're a normal person who wants to live a middle-class life then Norway is probably the best place, however if you're highly skilled in a profession then moving somewhere else is always a good option. Though the idea of growing up in a country like Japan isn't really something that appeals to me.

If you're highly skilled in a profession you can make excellent living pretty much in any shit hole of a country. Benefits of having money and all.

Lallante
January 28 2013, 05:34:06 PM
The scandanavian countries are good choices if you ARENT earning a decent (local) wage for the welfare and safety net.

New Zealand or other 'paradise' destinations are good choices if you want to retreat from the world.

If you ARE earning a decent wage, and you want to live in a city and live HARD, it has to be London, Tokyo or New York tbh.

You don't need civil rights, good standard of state education, low corruption etc if you have enough money.

Synapse
January 29 2013, 02:25:26 AM
The scandanavian countries are good choices if you ARENT earning a decent (local) wage for the welfare and safety net.

New Zealand or other 'paradise' destinations are good choices if you want to retreat from the world.

If you ARE earning a decent wage, and you want to live in a city and live HARD, it has to be London, Tokyo or New York tbh.

You don't need civil rights, good standard of state education, low corruption etc if you have enough money.

I don't really buy that at all. Untl you get into the "ridiculous sums" area where you can hire someone to manage the unpleasant parts of your life for you, even if you can afford to pay bribes, litigate your way to justice, or send your whole family to a private school, that all takes time and its a pain in the ass for both your personal and business life.

Even if you can afford it, its still a drain on your time and energies meaning you should consider going where you dont need to fight those battles, even if you will probably win them.

Alistair
January 29 2013, 03:57:56 AM
Depend on if money/upkeep was an issue or not.

If fiscally secure/retired/wealthy, I'd move back to Scotland, and settle somewhere in the Highlands, somewhere somewhat remote, in a glen, or near the Ocean.'

If have to work still, I'd stay here in the U.S.

Generally speaking, I think anywhere in the U.S./Western Europe is perfectly fine and dandy for most "don't infringe on my rights" issues, with some a little better here, or a little better there to taste.

But I agree with an earlier comment, so much of this boils down to personal preferences and desires, more than anything.

Rakshasa The Cat
January 29 2013, 06:28:22 AM
Someone actually suggested the US?

Sounds like fun, living just one serious illness away from bankruptcy.

Chrien
January 29 2013, 06:35:01 AM
I'd advise against Australia, too many retards and unfortunately they vote.

Lallante
January 29 2013, 09:15:35 AM
The scandanavian countries are good choices if you ARENT earning a decent (local) wage for the welfare and safety net.

New Zealand or other 'paradise' destinations are good choices if you want to retreat from the world.

If you ARE earning a decent wage, and you want to live in a city and live HARD, it has to be London, Tokyo or New York tbh.

You don't need civil rights, good standard of state education, low corruption etc if you have enough money.

I don't really buy that at all. Untl you get into the "ridiculous sums" area where you can hire someone to manage the unpleasant parts of your life for you, even if you can afford to pay bribes, litigate your way to justice, or send your whole family to a private school, that all takes time and its a pain in the ass for both your personal and business life.

Even if you can afford it, its still a drain on your time and energies meaning you should consider going where you dont need to fight those battles, even if you will probably win them.

New York and London have decent levels of justice/corruption/civil liberties/schools already. Certainly not so poor that it will negatively affect the lives of your average well-employed person (what the OP asked about).

Tokyo has good schools and minimal corruption. Justice and civil liberties a bit more fucked up, but as long as you avoid drugs or violence-against-women you are pretty safe as a westerner and there is basically no crime against westerners.

Synapse
January 29 2013, 12:00:45 PM
New York and London have decent levels of justice/corruption/civil liberties/schools already. Certainly not so poor that it will negatively affect the lives of your average well-employed person (what the OP asked about).

Tokyo has good schools and minimal corruption. Justice and civil liberties a bit more fucked up, but as long as you avoid drugs or violence-against-women you are pretty safe as a westerner and there is basically no crime against westerners.

Yes, they have decent levels of the aforementioned and yes it won't affect most people...but this isn't the "decent places in the world to live" thread. Your argument isn't convincing that they are "the best".

Rereading your earlier post, they might be the best if you value "living HARD" very highly. That's not high on my list.

Lallante
January 29 2013, 12:19:32 PM
New York and London have decent levels of justice/corruption/civil liberties/schools already. Certainly not so poor that it will negatively affect the lives of your average well-employed person (what the OP asked about).

Tokyo has good schools and minimal corruption. Justice and civil liberties a bit more fucked up, but as long as you avoid drugs or violence-against-women you are pretty safe as a westerner and there is basically no crime against westerners.



Yes, they have decent levels of the aforementioned and yes it won't affect most people...but this isn't the "decent places in the world to live" thread. Your argument isn't convincing that they are "the best".

Rereading your earlier post, they might be the best if you value "living HARD" very highly. That's not high on my list.#

Yeah I guess I'm saying those three places (maybe add Paris) are widely considered to be the world focus of "high living" - a combination of good restaurants, good theatre, cultural events, museums, clubbing, etc. Other cities can compete in individual areas but those are the true metropoles.

Synapse
January 29 2013, 12:30:55 PM
New York and London have decent levels of justice/corruption/civil liberties/schools already. Certainly not so poor that it will negatively affect the lives of your average well-employed person (what the OP asked about).

Tokyo has good schools and minimal corruption. Justice and civil liberties a bit more fucked up, but as long as you avoid drugs or violence-against-women you are pretty safe as a westerner and there is basically no crime against westerners.



Yes, they have decent levels of the aforementioned and yes it won't affect most people...but this isn't the "decent places in the world to live" thread. Your argument isn't convincing that they are "the best".

Rereading your earlier post, they might be the best if you value "living HARD" very highly. That's not high on my list.#

Yeah I guess I'm saying those three places (maybe add Paris) are widely considered to be the world focus of "high living" - a combination of good restaurants, good theatre, cultural events, museums, clubbing, etc. Other cities can compete in individual areas but those are the true metropoles.

point definitely taken. We're squarely in the region of the eye of the beholder. Although I posted the starting criteria I can't claim sole ownership of the thread. For the record, I'd rather hike to those falls posted on the last page than visit the MOMA though, or even my favorite restaurant of all time, (which is quite a stellar place to eat).

Lallante
January 29 2013, 02:10:48 PM
New York and London have decent levels of justice/corruption/civil liberties/schools already. Certainly not so poor that it will negatively affect the lives of your average well-employed person (what the OP asked about).

Tokyo has good schools and minimal corruption. Justice and civil liberties a bit more fucked up, but as long as you avoid drugs or violence-against-women you are pretty safe as a westerner and there is basically no crime against westerners.



Yes, they have decent levels of the aforementioned and yes it won't affect most people...but this isn't the "decent places in the world to live" thread. Your argument isn't convincing that they are "the best".

Rereading your earlier post, they might be the best if you value "living HARD" very highly. That's not high on my list.#

Yeah I guess I'm saying those three places (maybe add Paris) are widely considered to be the world focus of "high living" - a combination of good restaurants, good theatre, cultural events, museums, clubbing, etc. Other cities can compete in individual areas but those are the true metropoles.

point definitely taken. We're squarely in the region of the eye of the beholder. Although I posted the starting criteria I can't claim sole ownership of the thread. For the record, I'd rather hike to those falls posted on the last page than visit the MOMA though, or even my favorite restaurant of all time, (which is quite a stellar place to eat).

The point is that that makes the falls a better place to visit, once. Maybe twice. But there are thousands of high standard places to visit within London/Paris/Tokyo/NY and this is about living permenantly.

Cool09
January 29 2013, 03:42:01 PM
New York and London have decent levels of justice/corruption/civil liberties/schools already. Certainly not so poor that it will negatively affect the lives of your average well-employed person (what the OP asked about).

Tokyo has good schools and minimal corruption. Justice and civil liberties a bit more fucked up, but as long as you avoid drugs or violence-against-women you are pretty safe as a westerner and there is basically no crime against westerners.



Yes, they have decent levels of the aforementioned and yes it won't affect most people...but this isn't the "decent places in the world to live" thread. Your argument isn't convincing that they are "the best".

Rereading your earlier post, they might be the best if you value "living HARD" very highly. That's not high on my list.#

Yeah I guess I'm saying those three places (maybe add Paris) are widely considered to be the world focus of "high living" - a combination of good restaurants, good theatre, cultural events, museums, clubbing, etc. Other cities can compete in individual areas but those are the true metropoles.

point definitely taken. We're squarely in the region of the eye of the beholder. Although I posted the starting criteria I can't claim sole ownership of the thread. For the record, I'd rather hike to those falls posted on the last page than visit the MOMA though, or even my favorite restaurant of all time, (which is quite a stellar place to eat).

The point is that that makes the falls a better place to visit, once. Maybe twice. But there are thousands of high standard places to visit within London/Paris/Tokyo/NY and this is about living permenantly.

Again, a matter of taste. Some would rather drive past a beautiful mountain every day than have access to the best museums or clubs.

Tellenta
January 29 2013, 09:25:38 PM
My ideal place is far from humanity as a whole somewhere with pretty rock formations and big sky.

That's usually where I feel most chill.

My version of hell is living in city, so I guess you could say I'm in purgatory at the moment.

JForce
January 30 2013, 02:06:57 AM
I gots to big it up for NZ - a few key things, particularly based on Synapses original criteria:


Corruption index (http://geography.about.com/b/2012/12/11/most-and-least-corrupt-countries-of-2012.htm)
1) Denmark
2) Finland
3) New Zealand


Most livable cities (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10851952)
Auckland has maintained its position as the world's third most liveable city according to the annual Mercer Quality of Living survey.

The City of Sails ranks behind only Vienna and Zurich and the results means Auckland is in the top 10 in all three major international quality of life surveys, coming 9th in the Monocle magazine list and 10th in the Economist Intelligence Unit's.

We're the most awesome in terms of lifestyle, scenery, crime etc, but with access to all the perks of a European or US economy. The only real issue is the economy - we're a small country and just don't have the scale to make wages as high as elsewhere. Australia has the economy, but also snakes/spiders/racism, but is also a great place that's more laid-back than elsewhere but with all the western benefits.

For me personally I love it here, but would live in Europe (Italy preferred) and also Canada. Wouldn't mind living in Brazil for half a year or something just for fun also.

Sacul
January 30 2013, 11:52:45 AM
My ideal place is far from humanity as a whole somewhere with pretty rock formations and big sky.

That's usually where I feel most chill.

My version of hell is living in city, so I guess you could say I'm in purgatory at the moment.

I am the exact opposite. City guy, i love the culture, going out , having a metric fuck ton of options.
I enjoy the 'outdoors', i love mountains, i love to kayak, i love canyon-ing, lightning storms in a desert or a mountain area are out of this world! But then after a week or 3 i also love going back.

Melichor
January 31 2013, 01:51:18 PM
Currently living outside Charleston SC which is often rated as a top place to visit. Not the largest of cities and plenty of culture and fine dining to go around. It has its shit areas like any place but overall not too shabby

Conde Nast ranked it as the top city in the world for 2012 and several high tech jobs are moving in such as Boeing.

Sent via magic

Straight Hustlin
January 31 2013, 04:23:25 PM
My sister has lived in Charleston for years, very beautiful place, and the people are lovely. However everwhere outside of Charleston is kind of a shit hole from what I saw, and its kind of sad how obviously segregated it is. But a great place to live if your white.

Melichor
January 31 2013, 07:00:37 PM
Yeah north Charleston has a lot of issues but has been getting noticeably better with the introduction of high tech industries like Boeing and Google. This will to cause increased land values which should bring in much better people

Sent via magic

Ralara
February 7 2013, 11:25:53 AM
New York and London have decent levels of justice/corruption/civil liberties/schools already. Certainly not so poor that it will negatively affect the lives of your average well-employed person (what the OP asked about).

Tokyo has good schools and minimal corruption. Justice and civil liberties a bit more fucked up, but as long as you avoid drugs or violence-against-women you are pretty safe as a westerner and there is basically no crime against westerners.



Yes, they have decent levels of the aforementioned and yes it won't affect most people...but this isn't the "decent places in the world to live" thread. Your argument isn't convincing that they are "the best".

Rereading your earlier post, they might be the best if you value "living HARD" very highly. That's not high on my list.#

Yeah I guess I'm saying those three places (maybe add Paris) are widely considered to be the world focus of "high living" - a combination of good restaurants, good theatre, cultural events, museums, clubbing, etc. Other cities can compete in individual areas but those are the true metropoles.

Paris is a shit hole.


Anyway, one of the Scandanavian countries, canada or new zealand for me.

Diicc Tater
February 9 2013, 11:10:51 PM
Sweden:

Don't know if it's the best place to live but I don't want to move at least. Grass is petty green here tbh...

It can get cold here. Less so than Norway and Finland but more than Denmark.
English speaking people with education won't have any problem getting around and finding work.
If you know French, Spanish, any Chinese or Indian, German or Russian even better. Sales for big corporations want you.
If you have what one might call a prestigious occupation/trade you can live REALLY well here. Safe, secure and really really pleasant.

Housing goes through the whole scale. Super expensive in the capital and other big cities but it's possible to find great apartments in central locations for not-totally-unreasonable sums. If you don't mind a commute you can get sweet deals on houses etc.
Compared to the UK housing prices it's a staggering difference. For £300k you can build a new house for a family of 3-4 if you don't mind living outside of the cities. It'll also go a fair ways to get a sweet flat in a big city.

Commuting is OK on the whole. For me it's a 80km round trip to work, price for the commute is about €87/£73/$116 per month (unlimited travel between set zones) (google rates). ~½ to 1/3 of the price for the car/fuel.

And that brings us to the price of fuel and car stuff.
1l (0.264172052 US gallon) today is about £1.4/$2.25/€1.68
Used cars in good to great condition is about $10k/£7k/€8k and upwards depending on brand/miles and, of course, condition
Insurance for a 2003 Volvo V70 bog standard for a 30 yo man, living in a suburb, is about €350/$465/£295 per year.
Tax depends on car size and exhaust levels like most places. For a V70 it's about ½ of the insurance cost above per year.

Can start taking lessons at 16, license can be had at 18.

And taxes.
~30% income tax and fees if you are in the middle income bracket..
this is a good article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Sweden with further links.

The value added tax (mervärdesskatt or moms) rate is 25%, with exceptions for food and services like hotel room rental fees (12%), and for sales of publications, admission tickets to cultural events and travel within Sweden (6%).

Systembolaget (http://www.systembolaget.se/English/)
This you GOT to know about when you get here.
You can't buy beverages with alcohol above 3.5% in regular supremarkets, stores etc.
There are special shops for this called Systembolag.
Use it like this: "Shit, I need to go now before Systembolaget(or just Bolaget) closes!"
Cons:
You need to plan ahead. No spontaneous bottle of wine or case of beer as you do your grocery shopping.
Opening hours usually 9-18 on weekdays, Saturdays 10-15, Sundays Closed.
Not every place has one...

Pros:
Excellent variety.
GOOD service, they know their stuff about what to drink with what if you have no clue.

Drinking age in clubs, bars etc: 18
To buy from Bolaget: 20

TBH, I really like Bolaget. They have a great range (2300 items) and apart from their main range they also have a "per request" range(8500 items).
Quality control is excellent and they don't sell to people who are already intoxicated...
They are also BRAND NEUTRAL witch is fucking EPIC tbh.

Guns & Ammo
(in 2010) Almost 2 000 000 registered weapons (628 000 owners)
Of those almost 1 000 000 are rifles and about 700 000 are shotguns.
Almost all of there are for hunting.
National sport shooting association has some 100k members
Pistol variant of the association some 15k members.
It's estimated that there are some 40k illegal/unregistered weapons in Sweden (also 2010)
97% of confiscated weapons are unregged and illegal.

The people I know who own rifles are all hunters. I know no one who owns a gun/rifle for any other reason.

Social Security
It's pretty good tbh.
Go see a doc/GP for change. If you need heavy duty stuff done that's cool but you may have to wait for the procedure if it's not OHSHIT.
Private health insurance or supplied by your employer will get you in fast and with more perks.
You'll need some insurances ofc. Apart from car and house you'll need for "health" and accidents just in case. Won't cost you much tbh.

Dental care can be expensive. You can get insurance for this too, each dentist will have offers. It's free until you hit 18.
I've not heard of any employer giving "dental plans"...

3 big cities to live in:
Stockholm is really nice. It's got all a metropolitan meterosexual would want. Close to Uppsala for students. Lot's of green and close to the water. You can fish smack dab in the middle (well, almost)
Malmö (Malmoe to you Brits/Yanks) is also OK but a bit "rough" around the edges. It's damn close to the rest of Europe tho and Copenhagen which is a most EXCELLENT city. It's about 700km to Stockholm from here. Close to Lund for students.
Göteborg (Gothemburg), I don't like it that much. The city planning is not to my liking. Chalmers for students. AWESOME sunsets (west coast!). Close to Norway.

Random stuffs:
We're some 9.5 million Swedes here.
We are a bit reserved but quite friendly.
Foreigners (if you aren't a refugee) are met with cautious curiosity.
English will go a long way.
Don't expect to get a lot of invitations to peoples homes from the start.
Contrary to myth, we usually do drink without excess. Danes are unfortunate to get the weekend-alcoholic party boys. We are so sorry for that....
Shoes are not worn indoors. For casual visits you take them off. Wear nice socks.
If it's a more fancy gathering/feast you just take your best shoes. Remember, it's not embarrassing to ask about this.
Seriously not strange, the weather is something you'll hear a lot about here....
We have pretty good ski resorts up north.
Southern Sweden is most alive in the summer.


TL;DR? your loss.

ValorousBob
February 10 2013, 03:11:14 AM
Someone actually suggested the US?

Sounds like fun, living just one serious illness away from bankruptcy.

I dunno, the US definitely has our problems, but California is fantastic. The US is so diverse that you can honestly find the right place for anyone.

Melichor
February 10 2013, 05:01:45 AM
Someone actually suggested the US?

Sounds like fun, living just one serious illness away from bankruptcy.

I dunno, the US definitely has our problems, but California is fantastic. The US is so diverse that you can honestly find the right place for anyone.

Qft i know the south has lol racism issues sometimes but its not as bad as its made out to be and many northerners have relocated in the last decade or so

Sent via magic

Toxic
February 10 2013, 01:21:10 PM
After the megaupload scandal, and the blatant disregard for the owner's rights as a New Zealand citizen, New Zealand got taken off my list.

Denmark
Norway
Sweden
Iceland
Canada
Scotland

In that order.

Also, I value that people around me also have a decent living, and have their rights upheld etc.

Alistair
February 10 2013, 09:32:50 PM
Sweden:

Don't know if it's the best place to live but I don't want to move at least. Grass is petty green here tbh...TL;DR? your loss.

Whats the diversity like? From what I can see, it appears to be much like the other States of that region, i.e. almost all white, almost all Scandanavian/European, with very small populations of Jews, Muslims, non-Euro, ect. Although it does show a very fast-rising Iranian/Iraqi minority growth rate of late (i.e. since US/Iraq War II).

As a resident, how would you describe Sweden in terms of cultural and ethnic diversity? Comapre to say, the U.K. or the U.S.

Diicc Tater
February 11 2013, 07:48:40 AM
Sweden:

Don't know if it's the best place to live but I don't want to move at least. Grass is petty green here tbh...TL;DR? your loss.

Whats the diversity like? From what I can see, it appears to be much like the other States of that region, i.e. almost all white, almost all Scandanavian/European, with very small populations of Jews, Muslims, non-Euro, ect. Although it does show a very fast-rising Iranian/Iraqi minority growth rate of late (i.e. since US/Iraq War II).

As a resident, how would you describe Sweden in terms of cultural and ethnic diversity? Compare to say, the U.K. or the U.S.

In 2011, Sweden ranked 4/183 on the Transparency International list of corruption index (protip: it's low)
Less than 50% of born Swedes actively partake in religious activities/practice religion.

Ethnically it's mostly white European. Sweden is kind of a melting pot as far as Europeans go tho.
Traditionally adoptions have been from eastern Asia and south America (during the 70's a strong sympathy was held for Chile).
Concentration (not the camps lololol) of refugees from the Middle East in some areas (3 major cities). This is a bit of a problem as the integration is halted when this happens and incentives to get people to spread out have been tried and is being worked on still. You'll see people from the Persian areas in pretty much every town/city so it has worked a bit.

For numbers of the not-born-in-Sweden Swedes:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Foreign-born-in-sweden-2009.JPG
(Övriga= Other. Swedish names on the countries, but a non-idiot will still get it)

Swedes in general don't talk about religion unless it's because we feel it's being pushed upon us. Protestant/Lutheran Christian is the biggest.
No one likes the Jehovah's witness' people as we really hate the invasion of privacy it means to have them knock on your door AND talk about religion at the same time.
Mormons are rare.

Islam (~400k people, of which about 100k take part in Mosque activities (moderate practice) and 25k are devout (prayers 5 times a day +friday prayer)) is growing but that's because of immigration from Africa and the Middle East. There have been mosques for a long time already. As with the rest of Europe this is the biggest cause for concern for most Swedes, if we care at all. The majority are Muslims in the same way many Swedes are christians... by lose tradition, not really that bothered with most of it apart from the very basics like 'don't be a jerk'.

Judaism (about 20 000 people in 2010). They didn't have it any easier here than in the rest of Europe. During WW2 there were a LOT of sympathy for the Nazis and this is perhaps not that well known outside of Sweden. But they don't try to convert and we like that.

TL;DR
We hate loud people and we hate when you try to convert us. We don't mind religion as long as you keep it to yourself. We TRY to accept everyone but since we are reserved by nature it may be that it feels like we are shunning people who are used to a more open/loud group.

Ben Derindar
February 11 2013, 08:48:01 AM
Applied for SB just so I could post in this thread.

The things that are important to me personally are a temperate year-round climate, lower living costs, relative peace and quiet (especially after the earthquakes) but still in a big enough city to provide me with a few career options.

In November last year I moved to Dunedin (pop ~120K). It's one of the coolest places in NZ in the summer (~20-25C most days), and no colder than Christchurch in the winter (~5-15C). House prices/rents are reasonable, there's easy access to some amazing scenery when I feel like some time out, and while there aren't as many job options for me down here as I would like, I've found a decent position paying 25% more than my last job. So I'm as happy as I think I can be where I am right now.

Applying my criteria internationally, much of northern Europe would probably be ruled out on account of the cold winters and the short days/long nights that come with such latitudes. Cost of living would rule me out of most large cities just about anywhere really, maybe a smaller coastal city in mid latitude Europe or the eastern US seaboard would do. But nowhere specific really comes to mind. Certainly I'd be open to visiting some of these parts of the world someday, but living there, I dunno.

I suppose I'm biased because I've only travelled outside of NZ twice (both times just to Australia), but sometimes when I see/hear/read about what goes on in the rest of the world, I can't help but feel thankful I live where I do. Honestly, when the worst things I can think of about NZ is the terrible internet (fibre, what is this) and the occasional major earthquake every other decade, it can't be too bad.

Aea
February 12 2013, 07:33:28 AM
Someone actually suggested the US?

Sounds like fun, living just one serious illness away from bankruptcy.

I dunno, the US definitely has our problems, but California is fantastic. The US is so diverse that you can honestly find the right place for anyone.


The US is a great place to be if you're in the top 10-20% I certainly wouldn't want to be poor here.

Alistair
February 12 2013, 03:17:49 PM
Someone actually suggested the US?

Sounds like fun, living just one serious illness away from bankruptcy.

I dunno, the US definitely has our problems, but California is fantastic. The US is so diverse that you can honestly find the right place for anyone.


The US is a great place to be if you're in the top 10-20% I certainly wouldn't want to be poor here.

I and my family have been poor in America, fresh off the boat fromt he U.K. Now I'm top 20%.

IMO if you work hard and take the work thats available, exploit the Govt. aid programs that are available, and continually work to improve yourself, you will not be poor for long in America. You too can be top 20% without being special in any real form. IMO it all comes down to the decisions and priorities one chooses to make as an individual.

If all you want is a state-provided lifestyle without required work, yes, the U.S. is the wrong place to be poor. For obvious reasons, one of the more Social Welfare-based Nations would be far better for that.

Hast
February 12 2013, 04:26:26 PM
Someone actually suggested the US?

Sounds like fun, living just one serious illness away from bankruptcy.

I dunno, the US definitely has our problems, but California is fantastic. The US is so diverse that you can honestly find the right place for anyone.


The US is a great place to be if you're in the top 10-20% I certainly wouldn't want to be poor here.

I and my family have been poor in America, fresh off the boat fromt he U.K. Now I'm top 20%.

IMO if you work hard and take the work thats available, exploit the Govt. aid programs that are available, and continually work to improve yourself, you will not be poor for long in America. You too can be top 20% without being special in any real form. IMO it all comes down to the decisions and priorities one chooses to make as an individual.

If all you want is a state-provided lifestyle without required work, yes, the U.S. is the wrong place to be poor. For obvious reasons, one of the more Social Welfare-based Nations would be far better for that.

I'm sure a few people who are not white would disagree with you.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

definatelynotKKassandra
February 12 2013, 04:38:06 PM
This would be a perfect time for the return of Haffrage. Say 'bootstraps' three times...

Alistair
February 12 2013, 04:51:56 PM
Someone actually suggested the US?

Sounds like fun, living just one serious illness away from bankruptcy.

I dunno, the US definitely has our problems, but California is fantastic. The US is so diverse that you can honestly find the right place for anyone.


The US is a great place to be if you're in the top 10-20% I certainly wouldn't want to be poor here.

I and my family have been poor in America, fresh off the boat fromt he U.K. Now I'm top 20%.

IMO if you work hard and take the work thats available, exploit the Govt. aid programs that are available, and continually work to improve yourself, you will not be poor for long in America. You too can be top 20% without being special in any real form. IMO it all comes down to the decisions and priorities one chooses to make as an individual.

If all you want is a state-provided lifestyle without required work, yes, the U.S. is the wrong place to be poor. For obvious reasons, one of the more Social Welfare-based Nations would be far better for that.

I'm sure a few people who are not white would disagree with you.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

I'm sure a few people who are white would disagree with me too. Same way I'm well aware 95% of FHC disagrees with me on this. Thats ok too.

walrus
February 12 2013, 08:49:24 PM
Someone actually suggested the US?

Sounds like fun, living just one serious illness away from bankruptcy.

I dunno, the US definitely has our problems, but California is fantastic. The US is so diverse that you can honestly find the right place for anyone.


The US is a great place to be if you're in the top 10-20% I certainly wouldn't want to be poor here.

I and my family have been poor in America, fresh off the boat fromt he U.K. Now I'm top 20%.

IMO if you work hard and take the work thats available, exploit the Govt. aid programs that are available, and continually work to improve yourself, you will not be poor for long in America. You too can be top 20% without being special in any real form. IMO it all comes down to the decisions and priorities one chooses to make as an individual.

If all you want is a state-provided lifestyle without required work, yes, the U.S. is the wrong place to be poor. For obvious reasons, one of the more Social Welfare-based Nations would be far better for that.

I'm sure a few people who are not white would disagree with you.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

I'm sure a few people who are white would disagree with me too. Same way I'm well aware 95% of FHC disagrees with me on this. Thats ok too.

So if everyone worked hard, everyone would be in the top 20%?

Alistair
February 12 2013, 09:07:11 PM
Someone actually suggested the US?

Sounds like fun, living just one serious illness away from bankruptcy.

I dunno, the US definitely has our problems, but California is fantastic. The US is so diverse that you can honestly find the right place for anyone.


The US is a great place to be if you're in the top 10-20% I certainly wouldn't want to be poor here.

I and my family have been poor in America, fresh off the boat fromt he U.K. Now I'm top 20%.

IMO if you work hard and take the work thats available, exploit the Govt. aid programs that are available, and continually work to improve yourself, you will not be poor for long in America. You too can be top 20% without being special in any real form. IMO it all comes down to the decisions and priorities one chooses to make as an individual.

If all you want is a state-provided lifestyle without required work, yes, the U.S. is the wrong place to be poor. For obvious reasons, one of the more Social Welfare-based Nations would be far better for that.

I'm sure a few people who are not white would disagree with you.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

I'm sure a few people who are white would disagree with me too. Same way I'm well aware 95% of FHC disagrees with me on this. Thats ok too.

So if everyone worked hard, everyone would be in the top 20%?

Of course not. What kind of a trolling question is that?

Talent, skill, extra effort above and beyond, merit (work quality), education/training, seeking additional education/training and yes, most certainly things like inherited assets and even luck and social skills, will always cause rise some to rise to (or start at) the top. But you do not need to be top 20% to live a perfectly great life in the United States either, which was the original claim I was countering.

If you are able bodied, are dedicated to working, work hard/have a solid work ethic, do not make poor decisions (like showing up at work drunk), and you exploit the Federal, State and Local Govt. support programs available, you will not be poor for long in the United States, and you will live a life of relative quality and comfort.

Rakshasa The Cat
February 13 2013, 04:29:58 AM
Of course not. What kind of a trolling question is that?

Talent, skill, extra effort above and beyond, merit (work quality), education/training, seeking additional education/training and yes, most certainly things like inherited assets and even luck and social skills, will always cause rise some to rise to (or start at) the top. But you do not need to be top 20% to live a perfectly great life in the United States either, which was the original claim I was countering.

If you are able bodied, are dedicated to working, work hard/have a solid work ethic, do not make poor decisions (like showing up at work drunk), and you exploit the Federal, State and Local Govt. support programs available, you will not be poor for long in the United States, and you will live a life of relative quality and comfort.

Until you get sick or into an accident, or your kid gets sick or... then you're financially ruined.

Not to mention all the other things that could go wrong in life at no fault of yours, basically the 'if you work hard, etc, etc, then you'll be ok' myth is rather a peculiar fantasy you really only find to be widespread in the US.

Alistair
February 13 2013, 02:06:18 PM
Until you get sick or into an accident, or your kid gets sick or... then you're financially ruined.


......do not make poor decisions.....

Health Insurance and Car Insurance are two things that "good decision makers" will purchase before almost anything else other than food/shelter. To go without either in the U.S. system in quite foolish.

I've been in accidents. My health has been poor. I've never come close to being financially ruined over it.

My brothers tho.....neither of them choose to buy health insurance first, instead spending their incomes elsewhere. When they got sick (and both did), they were under some serious financial pressure, no doubt. Of course, they still got the healthcare they needed, even though neither could pay for it, and both are fine health-wise today.

Decisions. IMO it's all about making smart logical decisions. Like buying Health insurance before you buy a cellphone, a TV, those nice shoes or that shotgun you always liked.


Not to mention all the other things that could go wrong in life at no fault of yours

I think most things in life are directly the result of the decisions you make in life. While you may not decide to get sick, you do decide to prioritize health insurance or not, for example.


the 'if you work hard, etc, etc, then you'll be ok' myth is rather a peculiar fantasy you really only find to be widespread in the US.

I agree, it's certainly not an ethic I generally see reflected here from our Euro-based friends. The idea of personal responsabillity/accountabillity seems to be far eless poplar than with some in the States, with collectivism/social welfareism of various stripes and forms being far more popular.

What I always wonder though, is why so many Euro's seem to feel so passionately about how we choose do it here in the U.S. Why the idea of two differing ways of doing it seems so objectionable to some.

Hast
February 13 2013, 02:33:29 PM
Whats objectionable is/was the health insurance and medical industry's blatant exploitation of the system and how it affects how people in the US go about health care. Especially the dreaded "pre-existing condition". How bootstrapping and good work ethics can protect you against this I do not know.

It has been proven again and again that not putting a pricetag to going to the doctor means that people will go to the doctor more often. And catching disease early is how you prevent it and the cost of treating the disease in the late stages. Because the earlier you catch things the cheaper it usually is to treat, and the less chance that people die.

Alistair
February 13 2013, 02:43:19 PM
Whats objectionable is/was the health insurance and medical industry's blatant exploitation of the system and how it affects how people in the US go about health care. Especially the dreaded "pre-existing condition". How bootstrapping and good work ethics can protect you against this I do not know.

A good decision, i.e. "do not allow your coverage to lapse" takes care of the pre-existing condition problem.

With that said, it's termination by Govt. via regulation appears to be a good decision, one I support (and is now the Law under Obamacare).


It has been proven again and again that not putting a pricetag to going to the doctor means that people will go to the doctor more often.

And what does that do to cost? I've heard it claimed that it lowers costs, which would seem counterintuitive, especially on a scale such as that of the United States.

Remember, when the question is asked "who pays for it", the U.S. population as a whole is simply not as willing to raise taxes to Euro-style levels for what boils down to taxpayers paying for able-bodied non-taxpayers doctor vists. Judge that on a moral basis as you choose.

I'll say this, of the things the U.S. spends money on that differs from my own personal Libertarian views, Universal State-paid healthcare is one I COULD find support for. I'd like to see reallocation of existing Federal spending, rather than new taxation, as the mechanic to pay for it however. There is no shortage of Federal Spending we currently make that makes no sense whatsoever, and could be reallocated if the support for it existed.

For example, U.S. Wars in the Middle East, U.S. Millitary support and presense in Europe, Japan, Korea. The U.S> Nuclear Stockpile (beyond a minimal "enough to blwo up the world onceover" defensive amount. The U.S. failed War on Drugs and Drug posession decriminalization. U.S. Aid to nations such as Egypt. I'd terminate one and all, and reallocate that money to U.S. citizens wellbeing via State Healthcare programs, up to an including an Opt-in Universal System.


Because the earlier you catch things the cheaper it usually is to treat, and the less chance that people die.

So the health and lives of Americans means alot to you then? Such a position seems counter to the almost constant disdain directed toward the U.S. and it's people on a regular basis on FHC.

Hast
February 13 2013, 03:09:45 PM
That still does not explain why the american government are spending more per person on health then any other European country if my memory serves me correctly.

Alistair
February 13 2013, 03:13:16 PM
That still does not explain why the american government are spending more per person on health then any other European country if my memory serves me correctly.

I have my theories and ideas and experiences and beleifs on it, but no sources at hand to support them per se, so will not sperge them here.

Hast
February 13 2013, 03:16:23 PM
Whats objectionable is/was the health insurance and medical industry's blatant exploitation of the system and how it affects how people in the US go about health care. Especially the dreaded "pre-existing condition". How bootstrapping and good work ethics can protect you against this I do not know.

A good decision, i.e. "do not allow your coverage to lapse" takes care of the pre-existing condition problem.

With that said, it's termination by Govt. via regulation appears to be a good decision, one I support (and is now the Law under Obamacare).


It has been proven again and again that not putting a pricetag to going to the doctor means that people will go to the doctor more often.

And what does that do to cost? I've heard it claimed that it lowers costs, which would seem counterintuitive, especially on a scale such as that of the United States.

Remember, when the question is asked "who pays for it", the U.S. population as a whole is simply not as willing to raise taxes to Euro-style levels for what boils down to taxpayers paying for able-bodied non-taxpayers doctor vists. Judge that on a moral basis as you choose.

I'll say this, of the things the U.S. spends money on that differs from my own personal Libertarian views, Universal State-paid healthcare is one I COULD find support for. I'd like to see reallocation of existing Federal spending, rather than new taxation, as the mechanic to pay for it however. There is no shortage of Federal Spending we currently make that makes no sense whatsoever, and could be reallocated if the support for it existed.

For example, U.S. Wars in the Middle East, U.S. Millitary support and presense in Europe, Japan, Korea. The U.S> Nuclear Stockpile (beyond a minimal "enough to blwo up the world onceover" defensive amount. The U.S. failed War on Drugs and Drug posession decriminalization. U.S. Aid to nations such as Egypt. I'd terminate one and all, and reallocate that money to U.S. citizens wellbeing via State Healthcare programs, up to an including an Opt-in Universal System.


Because the earlier you catch things the cheaper it usually is to treat, and the less chance that people die.

So the health and lives of Americans means alot to you then? Such a position seems counter to the almost constant disdain directed toward the U.S. and it's people on a regular basis on FHC.

There is no distain from me at least towards anyone I don't really know, be they Iranian, American or North Korean for that matter. Do not misinterpret criticizing flaws in a on the whole good system with disdain for the people who in general have no real impact on the system alone.

Achieving a global minimum for universal healthcare should be something everyone strives for. My position is not a "fuck you americuh, got mine!" where I leech from the European welfare state. With my education I could easily afford private health insurance and so on, but I would not be where I am right now without the community and government.

Alistair
February 13 2013, 03:46:12 PM
Do not misinterpret criticizing flaws in a on the whole good system with disdain for the people who in general have no real impact on the system alone.

Flaws, as you see it, from your ideology and morality and persepctive, having not lived within the system.

If you truly are looking at "global" well being, I would say you have many places to work on before you'd get to the United States tbqh, yet so much of the criticism here at FHC is directed at the U.S., and not, say, the assortment of Nation States who so clearly warrant it more.


Achieving a global minimum for universal healthcare should be something everyone strives for.

Why is that? Because your morality demands it, even if the majority of some far off Nation State doesn't agree with you as to what that entails?

I don't agree with the premise, even if I agree with the desired end result, as I believe strongly in National Self-Determination and Democracy, the rights of free people to choose the systems (including the State-based charity/wlefare systems) they wish to have. As much as I may not like what another culture or nationstate views or thinks or does, it's not my (or my countries) right to tell them to change....a radical departure from usual and actual U.S. Foreign Policy, I know.

For example, I quite dislike the idea of abortion. But policy wise, I support what the people choose to be the Law. Morality is what Society chooses it to be, not what I say it should be.


I would not be where I am right now without the community and government.

I would.

Perhaps thats one reason why we see things differently?

Melichor
February 13 2013, 05:10:42 PM
Some businesses are exempt from the pre existing condition law. My mothers insurance has denied my father due to his cancer despite that law. I am un insured because im waiting to go to a benefited position where i work

Sent via magic

Alistair
February 13 2013, 05:23:40 PM
Some businesses are exempt from the pre existing condition law. My mothers insurance has denied my father due to his cancer despite that law.

I'm very, very sorry to hear that.

You father was diagnosed with cancer at a time when he was uninsured, then became insured under your Mother? Why was he uninsured, and not under your Mother's (or his own) policy at the time of the diagnosis? Was he between jobs or retired? If so, why did he not utilize the Cobra Plan bridge to maintain coverage or the Medicare/caid programs if low income? I would assume you're father is contesting the Insurer's findings, and I wish him and you the best of luck.

In any event, as I said above, I support the end of pre-existing (even if I understand why it exists) restrictions, and am not partiularly supportive of exceptions (the bane of American law, the always present, always corrupt "exceptions" granted).


I am un insured because im waiting to go to a benefited position where i work

Why are you not on Cobra? Did you not qualify (if so, why?) or did you not explore those options?

Melichor
February 13 2013, 05:34:28 PM
My father has his own insurance through work and had cancer a year ago with surgury to remove it. After the reform was passed my mother added him to her plan as well however with his cancer coming back terminally the company is denying based on the previous cancer. Apparently they were grandfathered in since they are a non profit (?). As for me i wasnt eligable but will be picking up a small plan soon(tm) if i dont get the benefited position at work

Sent via magic

Alistair
February 13 2013, 06:14:11 PM
My father has his own insurance through work and had cancer a year ago with surgury to remove it. After the reform was passed my mother added him to her plan as well however with his cancer coming back terminally the company is denying based on the previous cancer.

If he maintained his own, and your Mothers was supplimentary (i.e. he was new on it) then he should get full coverage through his own. If his own insurance tries to deny anything, that must be contested as strongly as possible.

I'd have to know more to have any idea why he would qualify as an exception to the "no Pre-Existign Conditions" changes for the new insurance, as generally speaking, he should be covered. Ah, I see, Non-Profit. Again, special interest groups get special interests....in this case an exception to the Law that they (the Non-Profit) lobied and asked for. The blame here lies on your mothers employer, who benefits from obtaining the exception they wanted (as a group).


As for me i wasnt eligable but will be picking up a small plan soon(tm) if i dont get the benefited position at work

My only advice, don't wait for long. Even young, anything can happen. It's not worth the risk.

I'm very sorry, and I wish you and yours the best of luck.

Tiny
February 13 2013, 09:03:40 PM
I decided to settle in west wales for the time being, why you may ask.

The meat, the beef and the lamb, so fresh so tasty, also the place is cheap and I work online, and there's more.

If you want to pick a place to live, as in stay in for some time, you need to understand how the world is changing or at least undertand that the change is now.

Live near people who give a fuck about you and give a fuck about the people you live near.

whispous
February 26 2013, 08:32:32 AM
I decided to settle in west wales for the time being, why you may ask.

The meat, the beef and the lamb, so fresh so tasty, also the place is cheap and I work online, and there's more.

If you want to pick a place to live, as in stay in for some time, you need to understand how the world is changing or at least undertand that the change is now.

Live near people who give a fuck about you and give a fuck about the people you live near.

that sounded like a poem.

Aea
February 27 2013, 02:13:03 AM
My father has his own insurance through work and had cancer a year ago with surgury to remove it. After the reform was passed my mother added him to her plan as well however with his cancer coming back terminally the company is denying based on the previous cancer.

If he maintained his own, and your Mothers was supplimentary (i.e. he was new on it) then he should get full coverage through his own. If his own insurance tries to deny anything, that must be contested as strongly as possible.

I'd have to know more to have any idea why he would qualify as an exception to the "no Pre-Existign Conditions" changes for the new insurance, as generally speaking, he should be covered. Ah, I see, Non-Profit. Again, special interest groups get special interests....in this case an exception to the Law that they (the Non-Profit) lobied and asked for. The blame here lies on your mothers employer, who benefits from obtaining the exception they wanted (as a group).


As for me i wasnt eligable but will be picking up a small plan soon(tm) if i dont get the benefited position at work

My only advice, don't wait for long. Even young, anything can happen. It's not worth the risk.

I'm very sorry, and I wish you and yours the best of luck.

This type of thinking is just boggling to me. Everybody should have the option of being able to get health insurance, I don't understand how people can rationalize having to jump through hoops so that somebody in the family remains covered, it's insanity.

Sponk
February 27 2013, 05:05:28 AM
How much is US health insurance cost anyway?

Synapse
February 27 2013, 09:12:08 AM
How much is US health insurance cost anyway?

Seems to be like $10,000 a year. I combined the worker and company average 2009 premiums mentioned here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_costs_in_the_United_States#Pre-existing_conditions

Alistair
February 27 2013, 12:17:47 PM
My father has his own insurance through work and had cancer a year ago with surgury to remove it. After the reform was passed my mother added him to her plan as well however with his cancer coming back terminally the company is denying based on the previous cancer.

If he maintained his own, and your Mothers was supplimentary (i.e. he was new on it) then he should get full coverage through his own. If his own insurance tries to deny anything, that must be contested as strongly as possible.

I'd have to know more to have any idea why he would qualify as an exception to the "no Pre-Existign Conditions" changes for the new insurance, as generally speaking, he should be covered. Ah, I see, Non-Profit. Again, special interest groups get special interests....in this case an exception to the Law that they (the Non-Profit) lobied and asked for. The blame here lies on your mothers employer, who benefits from obtaining the exception they wanted (as a group).


As for me i wasnt eligable but will be picking up a small plan soon(tm) if i dont get the benefited position at work

My only advice, don't wait for long. Even young, anything can happen. It's not worth the risk.

I'm very sorry, and I wish you and yours the best of luck.

This type of thinking is just boggling to me. Everybody should have the option of being able to get health insurance, I don't understand how people can rationalize having to jump through hoops so that somebody in the family remains covered, it's insanity.

Everyone has "the option of being able to get" insurance. No one is barred from buying insurance. They may not like the price or terms, and that, not access, is the issue.

What you want is every being able to have (not buy, have) Healthcare (not insurance), regardless of their abillity to pay or willingness to work.

A noble goal. The question then, are taxpayers willing to foot that bill, and accept the other things that come with a Universal Healthcare System, for the benefit of rest of us. Would they pay more, for less/slower care for themselves, in order to provide free or nearly free unlimited coverage for the masses?

Thats the debate that will occur, and thats the group that needs convinced. Not me explaining why Non-Profits obtained a loophole in Obamacare, thus screwing Mels's Dad it seems.

Healthcare probably warrants it's own Serious Thread.

Hast
February 27 2013, 12:23:46 PM
Most of the higher cost and longer wait times are a myth anyways. How else would you explain the fact that even in the bush years the us govt paid more for health care per capita then any other country.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

Lallante
February 27 2013, 02:59:53 PM
A noble goal. The question then, are taxpayers willing to foot that bill, and accept the other things that come with a Universal Healthcare System, for the benefit of rest of us. Would they pay more, for less/slower care for themselves, in order to provide free or nearly free unlimited coverage for the masses?

Thats the debate that will occur, and thats the group that needs convinced. Not me explaining why Non-Profits obtained a loophole in Obamacare, thus screwing Mels's Dad it seems.

Healthcare probably warrants it's own Serious Thread.

Pretty much every western country in the world except the USA manages some form of Universal Health System. Health insurance and private healthcare don't disappear in such a system - you can always pay more for better service - however for most thing (everything day-to-day pretty much) the free option is perfectly good. The doctors are largely the same either way.

Only the USA agonises over this like its some thorny philosophical question. Everyone else accepts that every human being deserves access to a reasonable degree of healthcare, just by dint of being human. You shouldn't have to earn it.

Alistair
February 27 2013, 03:41:49 PM
Only the USA agonises over this like its some thorny philosophical question. Everyone else accepts that every human being deserves access to a reasonable degree of healthcare, just by dint of being human. You shouldn't have to earn it.

You are correct. It's one of a number of things we, as a Nation, "agonizes" over that the rest of Western Civilization (i.e. Europe/Canada) does not.

Regardless, it will be up to the American voters (and to a lesser degree the taxpayers) if that is something they agree with (thus far they do, albeit on a much more limited basis, i.e. not Universal, but Social Welfare/Medicare/aid) and are willing to pay for. To the U.S. (generally speaking) it is both a philosophical question and a percieved fiscal question, depending on your place in the taxpaying rolls.

It's also likely a moot question tbqh. I happen to think we'll have some form of Universal Healthcare in the U.S. within 20-25 years, give or take, probably sooner. Even if a portion of the net tax paying voters disagree, the portion who would not feel a net tax burden increase to provide this service (and would gain the most from it) is growing, and trending up in political power, and will very likely force the chance soon (tm).

It's inevitable imo.

Victoria Steckersaurus
February 27 2013, 04:26:25 PM
Hopefully, the sooner it happens, the sooner someone who cares about the costs will also be the person looking at the bill. The biggest reason that our current system is so fucked is that private insurance puts itself between the people making decisions about healthcare (you, the patient) and the people paying for it (your employer) so that you never think about the costs. Not that I'm saying we should be letting cost be a major factor in our healthcare decisions, but rather that someone should notice when an MRI or CAT scan costs thousands when it should only cost hundreds. Instead the insurance companies sit in the middle and obfuscate everything relevant, allowing costs to rise out of control.

The transition to universal healthcare will like result in major costs savings. I got a good laugh out of it when Romney went to Israel and praised them for providing world class healthcare for only ~8% GDP, while we provide mediocre healtchare for ~18%. Israel uses the European model.

A better exposition on issues with our healthcare system (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-american-health-care-killed-my-father/307617/). Yeah, this kinda needs its own thread :P

Sponk
February 27 2013, 10:31:22 PM
How much is US health insurance cost anyway?

Seems to be like $10,000 a year. I combined the worker and company average 2009 premiums mentioned here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_costs_in_the_United_States#Pre-existing_conditions

Jesus f christ. For us it's an extra 1.5% income tax for public + $15/week for private cover.