Largest economy, strogest and most advanced military, most influancial and popular media that dominates international televisions. This is not an opinion question, this is a factual trivia question, and those who said no are sadly mistaken. If you like to deny truth and fact, you are either being modest, assuming you live in the U.S., or you are expressing your jealousy because your country couldn't manage to clentch that gold and your stuck watching the U.S. take the #1 spot on the podium.
Say that when you see 500 million Chinese people on your border with the intent to pay you a visit. It would mean much more than the memory of the old American TV westerns where the wagon train is down in the valley and there are hundreds of angry Native Americans on the hillside about ready to pay the wagon train party a visit.
All depends on how you define "power." Number one in child mortality, no. Number one in Olympic gold medals, no. Number one in science and engineering graduates, no. Number one in ships and planes and bombs, yes.
[1 point]108 days ago by plawlerReplyEdited 107 days ago by plawler
Ah... but the assertion is we are the most "powerful." Clearly the most powerful wins the gold medal. Please re-read your citation and tell me who has the most gold medals?
Well i personally do not judge a nations power by a piece of metal worn around the neck, i judge a nations power by the size of their economy, the strength of their military, international influence, and media domination. Which the "gold medal" goes to U.S. in all those categories.
Well we also have the gold in those areas too, just because are health care isn't "free" doesn't change the fact we have the overall best quality in the world, i don't know why everyone confuses health insurance and actual medical attention, completely different. You ever wonder why you watch some British documentary on Discovery Health about some British person who has to get some exotic operation that is only available in the United States?, and i have yet to see one where some American goes across the ocean to get an operation.
Au contraire, mon frere. What do you mean by "best quality?" If the average person gets mediocre quality care and the uber rich get high quality care does that qualify for "best quality" in your book? It doesn't in mine. But my original assertion wasn't about health "care," it was about infant mortality. Let's look at infant mortality. The U.S. is ranked 180 out of 222. That means there are 42 countries "better" than the U.S.<https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html>
Sweetie, you are once again confusing "health insurance" and "medical attention". "The U.S. does not have the best health care system in the world - it has the best emergency care system in the world." [http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm]. And for your 4-1-1, medical attention is not exclusively for the rich, maybe you need to look up the The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, EMTALA) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act], which "requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay". And i don't recall saying anything about infant mortality.... but ok.....
Sugar, please read what I originally wrote. All you have to do is scroll up. Please stop introducing straw man arguments to make points about something totally different.
And darling, please stop changing your arguments mid stream. You said, "the fact we have the best overall system in the world." You did not say "emergency care," you said, "overall."
No, this whole time i have been asserting the same thing, what do you not understand in the phrase "just because are health care isn't "free" doesn't change the fact we have the overall best quality in the world, i don't know why everyone confuses health insurance and actual medical attention, completely different.". That was the first thing i said to you, look up.
I don't care about the first thing YOU said. Since you were replying to MY comment, you have to address MY argument, which is that by one of the most commonly accepted measures of a country's "health" (i.e., infant mortality), we rank only 180th out of 224. I never said anything about "free" vs. "paid" health care, so you bringing that up is a straw man argument.
Did you actually READ the article you are quoting above from huppi.com? It explains how the health care "system" in the U.S. is not producing the healthiest people. Try actually READING your evidence sometime. You might learn something. ;o)
No, you did NOT say "medical attention" you said, "we have the best overall sytem in the world." Do you think saying something a lot makes you right? Go back and READ the article you cited. Then come tell me about how our health care system OVERALL (that's what you said, "overall") is the best in the world.
Sweetie, this will be like the 2nd or 3rd time i am requoting this exact portion of what i said. "we have the overall best quality in the world, i don't know why everyone confuses health insurance and actual --->medical attention<----, completely different."
Darling, I'm NOT talking about insurance. I never mentioned insurance! Never. Not once. I am talking about HEALTH. We are far from the healthiest country in the world. So no matter how good you think our "medical attention" system is, it is NOT producing healthy people. Get it? Americans are NOT the #1 healthy people in the world (or #2, or #3).
[1 point]107 days ago by plawlerReplyEdited 107 days ago by plawler
Okay, I'll use small words so you'll understand. Infant mortality is a measure of HEALTH. The evidence you supplied has several more measures of HEALTH. By any of them, the U.S. is NOT #1. Do you get it now, sugar?
Sorry, your evidence only references emergency medical attention. I'm talking about HEALTH (for about the 10th time). The United States is far from the #1 power in the world health-wise. Get over it.
The World Health Organization (WHO) in 2000 ranked the U.S. health care system first in both responsiveness and expenditure, but 37th in overall performance and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States], best quality of medical attention.
Precisely... we spend the most money, but are only 37th and 72nd in results. I have a very negative view of spending more money for worse results. Don't you?
I am going to leave you with this, If i were to become desperately ill, and could seek medical attention from any country in the world, my first choice would be the United States, being that they offer the highest quality of medical attention in the world. I would feel comfortable knowing that I can not be denied medical attention, regardless of the fact i could pay or not, i would be guaranteed the same high quality medical attention as everyone else, under the EMTALA. So while your concerned about the efficiency to pass around papers, me and the doctors will be focus our attention on saving my life.
I am judging the now, where saving lives is the number 1 priority, you are judging the later, when it comes down to the bills and who's paying for what.
That's not what your evidence says. Your evidence says they offer the 37th highest quality but at the highest cost. If you're happy with that, fine by me.
Well you must have misread it, it say "37th in overall performance". That is not the actual quality of medical attention, that would fall under responsiveness, which the U.S. places 1st. The U.S. system is flawed in the high prices, yes i agree 100%, i support unviresal health care 110%, so don''t think we are on separete pages. All i am say is we have the best overall quality of medical attention that money can buy, regardless of the high price that comes with it. I personally like what this guys says on it "Expensive and worth every penny". [http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/09/30/more-proof-us-health-care-is-the-best/], and if you read the article, he talks about how our system has higher rates of cancer survivors.... yada yada yada....
Yup. That's how I read it, too. #1 in cost, #37 in overall performance, #72 in health. Somehow I feel that the #1 price tag should buy us more than #72 out of 191. That means 38% of countries have BETTER health at a LOWER cost.
Sorry... forgot the education component. What I SAID was "science and engineering." not "top universities." Please address the assertions I made, not the ones you wish I had made.
In addition to the lack of big increases in college graduates with STEM degrees, the U.S. may also be losing its competitive edge in terms of high school science and math education compared with the rest of the world. The latest available data from the Education Department’s National Center for Education Statistics shows the U.S. well behind other countries such as Finland, Canada and Japan.
OOHHHH, not the highest in "science and engineering". You are trying to prove a point by using a page of a book that completely states something else. They might have more "science and engineering" graduates, but the U.S. ranks second in "percentage of population aged 25-64 that have attained a tertiary [college] level of education" [http://salaswildthoughts.blogspot.com/2007/02/most-educated-countries.html], and if you do the math [301,139,947 x 38.4%], the U.S. has the highest college educated work force in the world, at 115,637,739, the U.S. had more college graduates then actual citizens in Canada and every country in Western Europe.
Sorry, your going to have to face it, i have proven that the U.S., your country, rains supreme.
[1 point]107 days ago by cooljuno411ReplyEdited 107 days ago by cooljuno411
Umm... you're doing it again. You keep changing the subject to argue the point you think you have evidence for. My original assertion was that we are not the "most powerful" in terms of science and engineering graduates. If you have some evidence to refute that, then by all means, produce it. Otherwise you have "proven" nothing.
I haven't changed shit, if i recall your original statement was on the lines of "So education and health mean nothing? Those were the important ones, that you chose to ignore to focus on the 'pieces of metal'.". And i have "'proven' something", i proven your statement to be correct about the U.S., we have the best health care [and no, i did not say health care SYSTEM, i said simply health care, as in the actual medical attention you receive] in the world and the largest college educated work force in the world. You are the one who is changing argument half way down the page, i have had to tell you look back at previous statements twice now.
[1 point]107 days ago by cooljuno411ReplyEdited 107 days ago by cooljuno411
For your edification and enlightenment (since you are too lazy to scroll up) my original assertion was, "All depends on how you define "power." Number one in child mortality, no. Number one in Olympic gold medals, no. Number one in science and engineering graduates, no. Number one in ships and planes and bombs, yes." You have not "proven" any of those to be incorrect.
[2 points]107 days ago by plawlerReplyEdited 107 days ago by plawler
Well if you believe medals are power, great. I believe having the largest economy in the world shows power, I believe having the strongest and most advanced military in the world shows power, I believe being the worlds most influential nation shows power, I believe dominating and being the center of culture shows power, and I believe having the largest college educated work force in the world shows power.
I'm right there with you on the military thing. Center of culture? Subjective. College educated? Depends on what was studied. Influential? Depends on how that influence is wielded. Economic power? With our current national debt we may not be the largest economic power in the world for long.
I don't think we're going to loose the status of number 1 economic power anytime soon, you have to understand the fact that if the U.S. goes, so does every other country. The U.S. is a large part of any industrial nation's economy, Canada exporting over 80% of it's good directly to the U.S., which makes up a small fraction of U.S. imports. If we stop buying, they stop selling. The world economy is centered around satisfying the U.S.'s desire for product.
Ok, we will still be the ones standing on top of the other nations to stay at the top of the well. And btw, you changed you areguement right here from "With our current national debt we may not be the largest economic power in the world for long." to "[were] going down". And i would have to disagree with that, we are technically not in a "recession", a recession occurring when real gross domestic product (GDP) growth is negative for two or more consecutive quarters, and we have yet hit the red, we have just slowed a bit, but still moving forward.
What is the substantive difference between, "may not be at the top for long" and "we're going down soon?" I think that you just restated my argument. ;o)
[1 point]107 days ago by plawlerReplyEdited 107 days ago by plawler
The United States is the strongest republic in the world. It has an economy which even in a recession that still out performs many other nations. It's military is an all volunteer force of usually highly motivated men and women who believe in what they are doing. Finally while there has been some question as to the validity of certain electoral processes recently, the United States of America has had a peaceful transition of its government for the past 232 years. Strength comes in many forms and the United States has many of them. It major weakness however is its dependence on foreign oil and as a country must develop an energy policy to provide energy for its citizens.
Absolutely not. A single mindless quarter mile wide asteroid, hitting anywhere within the hemisphere, would likely wipe us all out, with nothing the country could do about it. And this would be a small natural disaster. Man is living in a dreamworld, oblivious to the power existing in nature, and thinking we rule the world.
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Loading...
Largest economy, strogest and most advanced military, most influancial and popular media that dominates international televisions. This is not an opinion question, this is a factual trivia question, and those who said no are sadly mistaken. If you like to deny truth and fact, you are either being modest, assuming you live in the U.S., or you are expressing your jealousy because your country couldn't manage to clentch that gold and your stuck watching the U.S. take the #1 spot on the podium.
biggest power in the world doesn't have any meaning these days!
Say that when you see 500 million Chinese people on your border with the intent to pay you a visit. It would mean much more than the memory of the old American TV westerns where the wagon train is down in the valley and there are hundreds of angry Native Americans on the hillside about ready to pay the wagon train party a visit.
Contrary to media hype, size matters.
Not in the Olympics.
Lat time i checked, we had the most medals.[http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/GL/95A/GL0000000.shtml]
Ah, but who has the most "gold" medals (the clear symbol of "most" powerful).
All depends on how you define "power." Number one in child mortality, no. Number one in Olympic gold medals, no. Number one in science and engineering graduates, no. Number one in ships and planes and bombs, yes.
fail, we have the most medals. [http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/GL/95A/GL0000000.shtml]
Ah... but the assertion is we are the most "powerful." Clearly the most powerful wins the gold medal. Please re-read your citation and tell me who has the most gold medals?
Well i personally do not judge a nations power by a piece of metal worn around the neck, i judge a nations power by the size of their economy, the strength of their military, international influence, and media domination. Which the "gold medal" goes to U.S. in all those categories.
So education and health mean nothing? Those were the important ones, that you chose to ignore to focus on the "pieces of metal."
Well we also have the gold in those areas too, just because are health care isn't "free" doesn't change the fact we have the overall best quality in the world, i don't know why everyone confuses health insurance and actual medical attention, completely different. You ever wonder why you watch some British documentary on Discovery Health about some British person who has to get some exotic operation that is only available in the United States?, and i have yet to see one where some American goes across the ocean to get an operation.
And btw, the number 1 university in the world, and 8 of the top 10 universities in the world are in the United States [http://www.arwu.org/rank/2004/top500(1-100).htm].
I personally think you are just throwing out random hoopla to try and prove a point.
I think USA is big only at the Olympics :)
Au contraire, mon frere. What do you mean by "best quality?" If the average person gets mediocre quality care and the uber rich get high quality care does that qualify for "best quality" in your book? It doesn't in mine. But my original assertion wasn't about health "care," it was about infant mortality. Let's look at infant mortality. The U.S. is ranked 180 out of 222. That means there are 42 countries "better" than the U.S.<https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html>
Sweetie, you are once again confusing "health insurance" and "medical attention". "The U.S. does not have the best health care system in the world - it has the best emergency care system in the world." [http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm]. And for your 4-1-1, medical attention is not exclusively for the rich, maybe you need to look up the The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, EMTALA) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act], which "requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay". And i don't recall saying anything about infant mortality.... but ok.....
Sugar, please read what I originally wrote. All you have to do is scroll up. Please stop introducing straw man arguments to make points about something totally different.
And darling, please stop changing your arguments mid stream. You said, "the fact we have the best overall system in the world." You did not say "emergency care," you said, "overall."
No, this whole time i have been asserting the same thing, what do you not understand in the phrase "just because are health care isn't "free" doesn't change the fact we have the overall best quality in the world, i don't know why everyone confuses health insurance and actual medical attention, completely different.". That was the first thing i said to you, look up.
I don't care about the first thing YOU said. Since you were replying to MY comment, you have to address MY argument, which is that by one of the most commonly accepted measures of a country's "health" (i.e., infant mortality), we rank only 180th out of 224. I never said anything about "free" vs. "paid" health care, so you bringing that up is a straw man argument.
Now your resorting to pathetic tactics because i have proven you wrong, see my comment bellow....
Sorry... straw man arguments are the pathetic tactic. Please see my comment below.
Did you actually READ the article you are quoting above from huppi.com? It explains how the health care "system" in the U.S. is not producing the healthiest people. Try actually READING your evidence sometime. You might learn something. ;o)
yeah, i know, like i said MEDICAL ATTENTION, not health assurance, as i have said 242345345645 million times already.
No, you did NOT say "medical attention" you said, "we have the best overall sytem in the world." Do you think saying something a lot makes you right? Go back and READ the article you cited. Then come tell me about how our health care system OVERALL (that's what you said, "overall") is the best in the world.
Sweetie, this will be like the 2nd or 3rd time i am requoting this exact portion of what i said. "we have the overall best quality in the world, i don't know why everyone confuses health insurance and actual --->medical attention<----, completely different."
Darling, I'm NOT talking about insurance. I never mentioned insurance! Never. Not once. I am talking about HEALTH. We are far from the healthiest country in the world. So no matter how good you think our "medical attention" system is, it is NOT producing healthy people. Get it? Americans are NOT the #1 healthy people in the world (or #2, or #3).
Your changing your statements again....
Okay, I'll use small words so you'll understand. Infant mortality is a measure of HEALTH. The evidence you supplied has several more measures of HEALTH. By any of them, the U.S. is NOT #1. Do you get it now, sugar?
k, great. still doesn't change the fact that the U.S. offers the highest standard of Medical Attention available.
Sorry, your evidence only references emergency medical attention. I'm talking about HEALTH (for about the 10th time). The United States is far from the #1 power in the world health-wise. Get over it.
The World Health Organization (WHO) in 2000 ranked the U.S. health care system first in both responsiveness and expenditure, but 37th in overall performance and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States], best quality of medical attention.
First in expenditure and 37th in performance and you're PROUD of that?
You might be misunderstanding the definition of "expenditure", because you seem to give off a vibe of negativity towards it.
expending: to pay out [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expending]
Capital expenditure: expenditures creating future benefits [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_expenditure].
That is saying we put the most money and effort into people, then any other nation.
Precisely... we spend the most money, but are only 37th and 72nd in results. I have a very negative view of spending more money for worse results. Don't you?
I am going to leave you with this, If i were to become desperately ill, and could seek medical attention from any country in the world, my first choice would be the United States, being that they offer the highest quality of medical attention in the world. I would feel comfortable knowing that I can not be denied medical attention, regardless of the fact i could pay or not, i would be guaranteed the same high quality medical attention as everyone else, under the EMTALA. So while your concerned about the efficiency to pass around papers, me and the doctors will be focus our attention on saving my life.
I am judging the now, where saving lives is the number 1 priority, you are judging the later, when it comes down to the bills and who's paying for what.
That's not what your evidence says. Your evidence says they offer the 37th highest quality but at the highest cost. If you're happy with that, fine by me.
Well you must have misread it, it say "37th in overall performance". That is not the actual quality of medical attention, that would fall under responsiveness, which the U.S. places 1st. The U.S. system is flawed in the high prices, yes i agree 100%, i support unviresal health care 110%, so don''t think we are on separete pages. All i am say is we have the best overall quality of medical attention that money can buy, regardless of the high price that comes with it. I personally like what this guys says on it "Expensive and worth every penny". [http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/09/30/more-proof-us-health-care-is-the-best/], and if you read the article, he talks about how our system has higher rates of cancer survivors.... yada yada yada....
Yup. That's how I read it, too. #1 in cost, #37 in overall performance, #72 in health. Somehow I feel that the #1 price tag should buy us more than #72 out of 191. That means 38% of countries have BETTER health at a LOWER cost.
Sorry... forgot the education component. What I SAID was "science and engineering." not "top universities." Please address the assertions I made, not the ones you wish I had made.
In addition to the lack of big increases in college graduates with STEM degrees, the U.S. may also be losing its competitive edge in terms of high school science and math education compared with the rest of the world. The latest available data from the Education Department’s National Center for Education Statistics shows the U.S. well behind other countries such as Finland, Canada and Japan.
OOHHHH, not the highest in "science and engineering". You are trying to prove a point by using a page of a book that completely states something else. They might have more "science and engineering" graduates, but the U.S. ranks second in "percentage of population aged 25-64 that have attained a tertiary [college] level of education" [http://salaswildthoughts.blogspot.com/2007/02/most-educated-countries.html], and if you do the math [301,139,947 x 38.4%], the U.S. has the highest college educated work force in the world, at 115,637,739, the U.S. had more college graduates then actual citizens in Canada and every country in Western Europe.
Sorry, your going to have to face it, i have proven that the U.S., your country, rains supreme.
Umm... you're doing it again. You keep changing the subject to argue the point you think you have evidence for. My original assertion was that we are not the "most powerful" in terms of science and engineering graduates. If you have some evidence to refute that, then by all means, produce it. Otherwise you have "proven" nothing.
I haven't changed shit, if i recall your original statement was on the lines of "So education and health mean nothing? Those were the important ones, that you chose to ignore to focus on the 'pieces of metal'.". And i have "'proven' something", i proven your statement to be correct about the U.S., we have the best health care [and no, i did not say health care SYSTEM, i said simply health care, as in the actual medical attention you receive] in the world and the largest college educated work force in the world. You are the one who is changing argument half way down the page, i have had to tell you look back at previous statements twice now.
For your edification and enlightenment (since you are too lazy to scroll up) my original assertion was, "All depends on how you define "power." Number one in child mortality, no. Number one in Olympic gold medals, no. Number one in science and engineering graduates, no. Number one in ships and planes and bombs, yes." You have not "proven" any of those to be incorrect.
Well if you believe medals are power, great. I believe having the largest economy in the world shows power, I believe having the strongest and most advanced military in the world shows power, I believe being the worlds most influential nation shows power, I believe dominating and being the center of culture shows power, and I believe having the largest college educated work force in the world shows power.
I'm right there with you on the military thing. Center of culture? Subjective. College educated? Depends on what was studied. Influential? Depends on how that influence is wielded. Economic power? With our current national debt we may not be the largest economic power in the world for long.
I don't think we're going to loose the status of number 1 economic power anytime soon, you have to understand the fact that if the U.S. goes, so does every other country. The U.S. is a large part of any industrial nation's economy, Canada exporting over 80% of it's good directly to the U.S., which makes up a small fraction of U.S. imports. If we stop buying, they stop selling. The world economy is centered around satisfying the U.S.'s desire for product.
Okay. So? If we go down so do other countries. I don't disagree with that. But it won't stop us from going down.
Ok, we will still be the ones standing on top of the other nations to stay at the top of the well. And btw, you changed you areguement right here from "With our current national debt we may not be the largest economic power in the world for long." to "[were] going down". And i would have to disagree with that, we are technically not in a "recession", a recession occurring when real gross domestic product (GDP) growth is negative for two or more consecutive quarters, and we have yet hit the red, we have just slowed a bit, but still moving forward.
What is the substantive difference between, "may not be at the top for long" and "we're going down soon?" I think that you just restated my argument. ;o)
We aren't going down, the boat is still cruising across the ocean, but it is going a bit slower then before, we have not yet started to titanic.
the main question is if you do play Rummy online
www.play-win-rummy.com
The United States is the strongest republic in the world. It has an economy which even in a recession that still out performs many other nations. It's military is an all volunteer force of usually highly motivated men and women who believe in what they are doing. Finally while there has been some question as to the validity of certain electoral processes recently, the United States of America has had a peaceful transition of its government for the past 232 years. Strength comes in many forms and the United States has many of them. It major weakness however is its dependence on foreign oil and as a country must develop an energy policy to provide energy for its citizens.
lol, im not sure man
Right on, popcorn! ;o)
Scroll up to the Google map of the World.
Take a look at the size of Russia.
You are not understanding the question, POWER not square miles.
Absolutely not. A single mindless quarter mile wide asteroid, hitting anywhere within the hemisphere, would likely wipe us all out, with nothing the country could do about it. And this would be a small natural disaster. Man is living in a dreamworld, oblivious to the power existing in nature, and thinking we rule the world.