Print 90 comment(s) - last by masher2.. on Oct 23 at 9:45 PM

Communist China is thinking of creating a Communist party space branch

Chinese astronauts are considering the creation of a space branch of the Communist Party of China (CPC). Even though the growing space nation is not a participating member of the International Space Station (ISS) project, the country hopes to be able to one day create its own permanent space station.

The Chinese astronaut corp now has 14 members -- all communist party members -- and the Communist party only requires three members for a government application.

"If China has its own space station, the taikonauts on mission will carry out the regular activities of a CPC branch in space in the way we do on Earth, such as learning the Party's policies and exchanging opinions on the Party's decisions," said Yang Liwei, China's first astronaut. "If we establish a Party branch in space, it would also be the 'highest' of its kind in the world.”

Yang, current deputy director of the China Astronaut Research Training Center, became the world's first taikonaut aboard the Shenzhou V spacecraft in 2003. During a mission two years later, two more Chinese astronauts were successfully sent to space aboard the Shenzhou VI spacecraft. Only the United States and Russia have successfully launched astronauts into space before China.

China plans another manned launch in mid-2008, this time with a three-man crew.

It will be a long time before an official party can be established, especially since the party branch must need a permanent space residence – a feat China will likely not be able to complete soon.

"Like foreign astronauts having their beliefs, we believe in Communism, which is also a spiritual power," closed Yang in a statement to Chinese media.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

just wondering
By spepper on 10/20/2007 11:29:09 AM , Rating: 5
hmmmm wondering-- hope they don't put Wong Wei as pilot of the CPC station-- he would immediately start trying to buzz (fly too close to) the ISS-- and snap off a solar panel or 3, or worse-- reference article at -- also remember, China would not even have a manned space program, without the launch and tracking technology sold to them by the Clinton Adm.-- thank you Bill and Hillary-- reference article at --

RE: just wondering
By Master Kenobi on 10/20/2007 11:46:19 AM , Rating: 1
Thats because China doesn't have real technological inventions, they steal something else and copy or improve it. Japan was doing this about 40 years ago, they finally stopped and invent now, but it took a while.

RE: just wondering
By Shining Arcanine on 10/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: just wondering
By ebakke on 10/20/2007 1:18:57 PM , Rating: 5
Great.... Thanks....

Now, back to the actual topic they were talking about.

RE: just wondering
By MGSsancho on 10/20/2007 2:49:58 PM , Rating: 2
a lot can happen in over a 1000 years dude.

RE: just wondering
By Zensphere on 10/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: just wondering
By Samus on 10/20/2007 5:34:09 PM , Rating: 5
The United States made a political decision to give Japan what they needed to rebuild after we completely destroyed their country. It was, after all, the right decision, because since the demise of the Samuri, Japan was a political mess itself with it's people having little control over government decisions (a lot like Germany during the early-mid 1900's)

We didn't help Germany much because Europe was there to assist with post war damage. That, and Germany didn't have to deal with nuclear aftermath.

RE: just wondering
By Ringold on 10/20/2007 5:40:25 PM , Rating: 5
That, and Germany didn't have to deal with nuclear aftermath.

Correct. They had to deal with the aftermath of strategic bombing; in this case, far, far worse than nuclear aftermath.

Today it's be a little different, but people give the nuclear weapons used against Japan a lot more credit than they're due.. They had psychological impact more than anything.

RE: just wondering
By Gul Westfale on 10/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: just wondering
By masher2 on 10/20/2007 9:55:50 PM , Rating: 4
> > "as they had already hinted that they would [surrender] before the bombings..."

What sort of revisionist nonsense is this? Even after the bombings, the Supreme War Council voted against surrender. The SWC wanted America to invade. They felt that, with their rugged terrain and willingness of the civilian population to fight, they could kill enough Americans to turn the tide of the war.

Even after the suprise declaration of war on Japan by the Soviet Union (two days after the boming of Hiroshima) the SWC once again voted against surrender, saying that any other decision would result in a coup by angry military officers. Hirohito requested the council surrender anyway...they responded by drawing up a list of officers to be shot for supporting peace. The US continued to exert pressure, by new bombing raids on Tokyo.

It wasn't until Hirohito made a public appeal by radio that the SWC decided to accept peace. And even then, the predicted coup occurred, with a group officers mutinying, assassinating several high-ranking officials, and attacking the Imperial Palace itself. Luckily, the coup was stopped in time.

The notion that Japan "would have accepted peace" without the bombings is nonsense. Even with the bombings, they very nearly didn't.

RE: just wondering
By lompocus on 10/20/2007 11:16:32 PM , Rating: 1
quite true.

An example of how war leads to peace. Unfourtunately, people die in war.

One has to the hell can a few power hungry people lead to war, e.g. terrorist guys?

ANYWAYS this is a space topic. These ALWAYS end up in 'china is t3h world power' shit talk.

RE: just wondering
By jacarte8 on 10/22/2007 9:54:29 AM , Rating: 2
Let that be a lesson to other knuckle-heads thinking of attacking America! We don't care if you're about to surrender or not!

Any further complaints will result in your vaporization.

RE: just wondering
By Hawkido on 10/22/2007 3:04:24 PM , Rating: 3
> > "as they had already hinted that they would [surrender] before the bombings..."

What sort of revisionist nonsense is this?

Actually, Masher, there have been documents indicating that a surrender was being negotiated. However, it is often omitted as to who they were going to surrender to. The answer is Russia, and the were going to surrender with provisions that they retain their military power. All they had to do was become Communist and help take over China, Korea, Vietnan, and the rest of the island states in the Pacific Rim, including Hawaii and Australia.

Hey that doesn't sound like a surrender to the US who was doing all the fighting (okay, china and the islanders helped some to). That just sounds like they are picking up a new ally!!!

Nuking them was the only way to bring their war machine down before they fell under the protection of an uneasy ally, that eventually turned into the Red Monster. Without Japan during the Cold War, we would have been hard pressed to hold back the Red Tide, as we still didn't have global bombers. Europe would have fallen to the Red Tide as we wouldn't have had the resources to keep them tied up so neatly on the pacific front.

I still think MacArthur was right in confronting China's communist elements before they took over the country. Had we done that we would have been able to end the cold war much faster (else spawned WWIII). Things worked out okay for the US, we are still standing, the USSR is in pieces. Japan is healthy, poor china can't have a university rally without someone getting ran over by a tank.

RE: just wondering
By masher2 on 10/23/2007 7:30:26 AM , Rating: 1
Actually, Masher, there have been documents indicating that a surrender was being negotiated. However, it is often omitted as to who they were going to surrender to. The answer is Russia,
No. Before the bombings, Hirohito had some limited communications with Stalin in which he indicated a willingness to "settle all scores". However, it most certainly wasn't a surrender, particularly since at that time Japan wasn't even at war with the Soviet Union.

Furthermore, such revisionist attempts ignore the fact that Hirohito -- despite the name 'Emperor' -- had limited power over the nation. As I mentioned above, the Supreme War Council and the population at large both favored continuing the war. It's illuminating to note that, immediately after the surrender, a poll showed over 70% of all Japanese favored death or exile for Hirohito.

The bombing of Hiroshima didn't compel the Japanese to surrender. The later bombing of Nagasaki didn't. Those, combined with the declaration of war by the Soviets, the subsequent (non-nuclear) bombing raids on Tokyo, and widespread Allied drops of propaganda flyers, showing the results of the bombings and threatening more, eventually turned the tide.

RE: just wondering
By masher2 on 10/23/2007 7:35:03 AM , Rating: 1
I also want to point out that, in the month before the bombings, the US intercepted and decrypted the private communications between the Japanese ambassador to the USSR and the Japanese government. Those communiques specifically warned the ambassador against offering even a hint of surrender.

RE: just wondering
By Hawkido on 10/23/2007 9:37:38 PM , Rating: 1
It appears even tho I looked into it I still got fed some revisionist history (truely that is the greatest Civil Rights violation). Tho as I haven't found all the data you have, I will take you datawith a grain of salt... I do agree with you that communist influences in the US have distorted our recorded history after the fact... If you think that the US population would have balked about nuking Japan you don't know enough WWII era people. All my grandparents served (grandma's and grandpa's). They said it was bad that we had to crush the civilians to stop the war machine, but they were not against it. "It was one of those things you weeped about but you knew it had to be done... Like amputating a soldier's leg" That's the way my grandma put it who served as a nurse in Hawaii.

RE: just wondering
By masher2 on 10/23/2007 9:45:01 PM , Rating: 1
> " If you think that the US population would have balked about nuking Japan you don't know enough WWII era people"

Very true. Also, remember perspectives on nuclear weapons are wholly different today, after living through the Cold War era. We consider nuclear weapons to be in a different category than conventional ones, and for good reason.

However, in 1945 a nuclear bomb was just a bomb...albeit a very large one. There was no stigma attached to their usage.

RE: just wondering
By jskirwin on 10/22/2007 11:25:53 AM , Rating: 2
they had already hinted that they would do so before the bombings

I met Japanese who were being trained by the neighborhood watch to attack the expected American invaders with sharpened sticks. They also told me how children were being taught to overcome their fear of foreigners so that they would don backpacks holding bombs and approach American soldiers. It was a difficult task considering that most had never seen a foreigners.

They were convinced that had the bombs not been dropped they would have fought to the last man/woman/child - as the Okinawans had earlier in the Summer of '45.

RE: just wondering
By Gul Westfale on 10/22/2007 2:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
that is all true, however the emperor himself had hinted in messages sent to the allies that he would consider surrender if it meant that he himself could remain as head of state. the allies refused, dropped the bombs, and then let him continue on as emperor after japan's unconditional surrender. it's not revisionist if it actually happened.

RE: just wondering
By jacarte8 on 10/22/2007 9:58:25 AM , Rating: 2
Wrong, we (the US) spent BILLIONS to assist the rebuilding of Germany.


RE: just wondering
By lemonadesoda on 10/22/2007 5:39:58 PM , Rating: 2

The "aid" was interest bearing loans. Germany paid the U.S. back in installments (the last check was handed over in June 1971).

The "aid" was used to support US growth (exports). There were significant restrictions on how the money could be spent, i.e buying US imports.

While the Marshall Plan DID HELP Europe significantly during the post war periods, it needs to be considered as the provision of much needed liquidity, via loan, and not a gift, and was equally designed to benefit the US as much as it did any European country.

Remember also the Industry Plan for Germany after the war. The US led the distruction of 75% of Germany's industrial capacity. Some of this distruction was by physically destroying factories. The other form of distruction was by "stealing"(?) the machines and shipping them to other countries, esp. the US.

Perhaps not dissimilar from the rebuilding of Iraq? Force US contractors at US prices, NOT LOCAL PRICES, and pay via oil.

The Marshall Plan was not wrong. It was a good idea. It helped Europe. It was also clever. It helped the US. It was not charity.

RE: just wondering
By lompocus on 10/23/2007 3:17:28 AM , Rating: 1

We fought for them. We built for them. We saved the whole damn world for them.

We deserve more than what we got, aka unconditional respect!

RE: just wondering
By bisoy on 10/20/2007 1:34:29 PM , Rating: 2
If we hadn't sold it to them, they would have stolen it by now anyway.

RE: just wondering
By neocommunist on 10/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: just wondering
By MGSsancho on 10/20/2007 2:50:51 PM , Rating: 2
top reasons for death in amerikkka are heat problems and car accidents.

RE: just wondering
By neocommunist on 10/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: just wondering
By exanimas on 10/20/2007 4:05:08 PM , Rating: 4
Add suicide to the list, because after reading the garbage you wrote I now want to kill myself.

RE: just wondering
By neocommunist on 10/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: just wondering
By Ringold on 10/20/2007 5:41:48 PM , Rating: 4
Somebody didn't get breast fed enough as a baby...

RE: just wondering
By Spartan Niner on 10/22/2007 4:31:47 AM , Rating: 1
Maybe his mommy was one of them 'Vegans' who tried soy formula instead because human milk is a sin?

RE: just wondering
By lompocus on 10/20/2007 11:19:02 PM , Rating: 1
psst, europe has been ahead of the US in obesity and obesity related deaths since the 1990s.

get your facts straight.

RE: just wondering
By mars777 on 10/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: just wondering
By rbuszka on 10/21/2007 10:02:04 PM , Rating: 2
From the 'put up or shut up' department: Cite some figures, both of you, or forget it.

RE: just wondering
By lompocus on 10/23/2007 3:19:19 AM , Rating: 1

granted its 7 years old. Imagine just how fatter they are than us now!

and you europeans, with your typical european response of denial and idiocy and other hypocricy.

RE: just wondering
By borowki on 10/20/2007 3:04:25 PM , Rating: 5
Seeing how guns aren't allowed on the ISS, I think it's time to start a branch of the NRA in space.

RE: just wondering
By Gul Westfale on 10/20/2007 8:46:32 PM , Rating: 3
OMFG - charlton heston in spaaaaace!!! can you say planet of the apes lol?

RE: just wondering
By redbone75 on 10/21/2007 5:03:03 PM , Rating: 2
Seeing how guns aren't allowed on the ISS, I think it's time to start a branch of the NRA in space.

I think they already have one, but the just don't tell anyone about it.

RE: just wondering
By Enoch2001 on 10/20/2007 10:12:35 PM , Rating: 1
You're an idiot.

RE: just wondering
By bangmal on 10/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: just wondering
By jacarte8 on 10/22/2007 10:09:57 AM , Rating: 1
The americans are still living in the illusion that they are what they were a few decades ago.

We treat american like condoms: used and dumped.

Who treats us like that? I'll bomb them into oblivion!

RE: just wondering
By fictisiousname on 10/20/2007 6:45:34 PM , Rating: 2
Can't wait for them to call for tech support....

History beckons.
By fifolo on 10/20/2007 11:54:57 AM , Rating: 5
They will be able to boast to have the first man to wok in space.

RE: History beckons.
By brenatevi on 10/21/2007 6:54:00 AM , Rating: 3
But will they Wok and Roll?

RE: History beckons.
By Korvon on 10/22/2007 1:34:46 PM , Rating: 3
How about the first Moon Wok?

By rippleyaliens on 10/20/2007 11:24:24 AM , Rating: 1
Once China becomes an Original Country then yes by all means go for it. Communism or Capitalism, means nothing in the big picture. China is notorious for copying ideas, devices, whatever.. and claiming credit. In their country their people actually believe that China created everything. But in reality there are very few things that have been truly made there.

Them going into space so far is only 40+ years late in the game. yet they are acting like they are pioneers in the field.
Communism in space? UHH they are like 3 decades late even with this ideology. Russia -been there done that-

My predictions is very soon, China will preform a HUGE fumble, in the worlds eye's.. That will cause itself much harmmm..
The United States , is definetly headed that way as wellm But China however old it is, is going to really hurt in the following years..

RE: Original
By murphyslabrat on 10/20/2007 2:28:55 PM , Rating: 2
My guess is that you are soon going to inhale. Of course I am right, as it happens regularly. However, no one noticed. It is the same on the political spectrum: when someone makes a mistake, either no one notices/cares or they get ridiculed for a short while. Look at France, five years ago there were more French jokes than Americans to tell them. Now? Many people (myself excluded) agree with what the French said: "No, this war is not right."

As a man destined for greatness (me) once said (about 1:30 P.M. on October 20th, 2007), "To err is human, to care is godlike." America's mistakes are only remembered when there is an agenda. These agendas also preclude relevant successes. The same is true of any other nation; to make a point, you must find precedence. China will be remembered as a nation of slovenly, dictatorial, hypocritical politicians dominating poor, oppressed peons; as long as the point is that America is great. China, in reality, has been a nation full of contrast: incredible triumphs mixed with ridiculous failures. Unfortunately, many American reports, both private and syndicated, contrast the failures of China with the success of America, while completely ignoring the other side of the coin.

China is going to space, so they are allowed to extend their influence into space. I don't see the impact of this decision to create a "space-based communism", unless it leads to non-airforce personnel being involved; which would be a triumph "worthy of capitalism." To date, the only effort to bring a civilian to space, on the part of America at least, was a fiery fiasco (Challenger).

BTW, I believe that capitalism is a better system, as I do not see man as capable of the level of goodness required by a successful communistic state. I am not going to assert that now, I am just stating my position.

RE: Original
By Ringold on 10/20/2007 5:53:54 PM , Rating: 2
NASA got another teacher up this year, and capitalism has put it's people in space without communist or statist help.

Just pointing it out. I look in my crystal ball and I see that within 20 or 30 years, the free market will be doing more in space than all governments, communist or otherwise, combined could hope to be doing so regularly and so safely.

RE: Original
By timmiser on 10/22/2007 6:35:15 PM , Rating: 2
Well actually, without the original space race with communist Russia, who knows when we would have gone into space?

Doesn't this prove that capitalism needs communism to succeed?

You know, protaganist/antagonist; Terrans/Klingons?

By James Holden on 10/20/2007 9:42:20 AM , Rating: 5
The real question becomes will the CPC send up red kool aid to their imaginary space station?

No make no sense...
By MonkeyPaw on 10/20/2007 10:39:16 AM , Rating: 5
"If we establish a Party branch in space, it would also be the 'highest' of its kind in the world.”

I love Communist humor. Sadly, most of it doesn't make it past the censors.

Is it only me or...
By Anosh on 10/20/2007 9:47:51 AM , Rating: 2
Is it only me or does this sound out of this world?

RE: Is it only me or...
By hrah20 on 10/20/2007 10:50:31 AM , Rating: 2
this is ludicrous !!!

By Rotkiv on 10/20/2007 12:03:34 PM , Rating: 2
And I am sure this will help with their application to join the ISS.


By Tedtalker1 on 10/21/2007 2:19:32 AM , Rating: 1
In 10 years you will be begging the Chinese to join THEIR space programme, AmeriKKKan.

In ten more years of your government poisoning your land,space is about the only place that will be safe for you space monkey.

By Ringold on 10/20/2007 6:06:17 PM , Rating: 2
I dont believe it was a serious request anyway. More along the lines of "Let's ask just to make them look bad when they turn us away".

Isaac Asimov
By Screwballl on 10/20/2007 3:18:23 PM , Rating: 2
In his book Nemesis set a few hundred years in the future, once man started building societies out in space, each group separated themselves based on national/continental origin. African based had their own space station, asians had their, whites had theirs and they all coexisted fine whenever travelers went from one to the other.
I am curious how well this would work if it were to happen in our great grandchildren's time or would we end up like Idiocracy the movie???

RE: Isaac Asimov
By KristopherKubicki on 10/20/2007 3:55:03 PM , Rating: 2
Dont forget when Asimov wrote Nemesis, the world was still a very segregated place, especially here in the U.S.

RE: Isaac Asimov
By lompocus on 10/21/07, Rating: -1
By Mgz on 10/20/2007 10:01:47 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think that was really his personal comment tho. Must be somebody from the party ask him to speak so.

By kyleb2112 on 10/20/2007 5:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
Do you take just communism or the entire Trash Heap of History? I see it as a payload issue.

Woot, I'm Spacebound!
By Communism on 10/21/2007 12:31:05 AM , Rating: 2
Time to find the Covenant and bomb the nuke out of them :D

unionized nations FTW! lol
By VERTIGGO on 10/21/2007 5:35:58 PM , Rating: 2
communism does a number on a nation's creative output

Fact Follows Fiction
By mindless1 on 10/22/2007 3:09:47 AM , Rating: 2
So it might be true, that WWIII is fought in space.

One has to wonder, what if a Chinese astronaut wants to immigrate, would the US grant space-asylum or be limited by political factors?

All the sci-fi flicks ignored this aspect of space travel, it was always "us" against "them" (the aliens), never us vs. us while the aliens watched and laughed, dragging off the salvage when we're done trying to impose upon each other.

IMO, if there cannot be self-governance in space, the rules have to change. Government is about land boundaries, NOT supposed "ideals" which some try to thrust upon the masses. In space, there is only one governing party - those who foot the bill for your safe return home. I would think twice before being a Chinese astronaut, because it still seems life is cheap there.

Hehe, what a silly story
By lco45 on 10/22/2007 6:46:14 AM , Rating: 2
You might as well say "Chinese astronauts want communism in Apartment 17, 123 Whatever Street". About the same number of people.

Lead Paint
By Machinegear on 10/22/2007 1:17:34 PM , Rating: 2
Can China recall a space station? :)

By Vim on 10/20/2007 2:27:56 PM , Rating: 2
This is pretty dumb.

RE: This...
By neocommunist on 10/20/07, Rating: -1
Designed to infame Americans
By Combatcolin on 10/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: Designed to infame Americans
By Rav3n on 10/20/2007 12:36:38 PM , Rating: 3
Infuriate Americans, or spur discussion? The purpose of a headline is to draw in readers while giving some clue as to the contents of the article. Clearly, this one did. Is it a misleading headline as some have already suggested? Well, maybe it isn't the greatest piece of literature in the world.

As for the Airbus article, unless you are an American LOOKING to get pissed off, and LOOKING for a fight, there is no need to get offended. Nowhere did the article say Europeans are better than Americans, or Americans are incompetent/lazy/etc.

Besides, every publication is allowed to lean in a political direction, or take a stance. Whether this publication has taken an anti-American stance (and I don't think it has) shouldn't be up for debate due to 2 headlines.

RE: Designed to infame Americans
By Ringold on 10/20/2007 5:59:20 PM , Rating: 3
Whether this publication has taken an anti-American stance (and I don't think it has)

I don't either, and I got get the OP's point. Sounds like a typical leftist making something out of nothing about the other side that he doesn't understand.

AirBus thing: It'll never happen, who cares?
Space Painted Red thing: Is this even a surprise? Again, who cares?

Both interesting news items, worthy of some discussion and of DT's attention in posting, but not something that would rile the right.

Now if DT dared to point out the recent news item about socialized Canadian medicine forcing Canadian mothers in to give birth to their premature babies in America because Canada, in a natural result of government intervention, has insufficient facilities to handle them all then that would really rile the left-wing. They're much easier to fire up. :) But these things? Not a big deal.

RE: Designed to infame Americans
By Felofasofa on 10/20/2007 8:02:01 PM , Rating: 1
You wouldn't be trying to espouse the virtues of the American health system would you? A health system in which 40 million people are without insurance. Those with insurance totally abuse it by never costing any health services, so Doctors and clinics charge what ever they want. Drug companies that charge outrageous amounts for pills, to fund their "research." My Father 82 who lives in Australia, was diagnosed with stenosis of the aortic valve. So he needed a new valve, it took less than 4 months from diagnosis for him to have surgery (successful). He has no health insurance and he didn't have to front up with any cash. Wouldn't happen in America. We all pay 1.5% of our income to fund our system, those with private health insurance pay less. It works way better than your supply and demand system which is in crisis.

RE: Designed to infame Americans
By Pirks on 10/21/2007 12:21:45 AM , Rating: 1
American healthcare system is a wonderful thing compared to Canadian one with its long waiting lists, where you can die while waiting for your doctor's appointment. I've been waiting for nine months for my appointment in Edmonton, luckily it was not a critical case. Nice "free" healthcare where everybody is "free" to die waiting. Screw you, Canadian Commie Government, for making private healthcare illegal.

RE: Designed to infame Americans
By Ringold on 10/21/2007 5:58:17 AM , Rating: 2
And you've got a top marginal tax bracket of 40-50% to go along with that wait time.

Of course, if you're in the top marginal bracket, could probably afford to get real health care and drive south of the border..

India also has a booming business privately treating health care refugees from the developed world.

RE: Designed to infame Americans
By Ringold on 10/21/2007 5:53:36 AM , Rating: 2
Lol, you proved my point; Communism is space? Conservatives don't care. The mere mention of a failing of a government agency? Someone comes out of the woodworks quacking about the glories of rationed medicine.

We can cite examples both ways all week. Fact is, those with insurance (ie, anybody who gives enough of a damn to work at someplace even as low as Starbucks) in the US get the best care a man can get. Those who dont have any can still manage anything short of disaster at low cost; god bless Walmart. Also worth pointing out the fact that where the free market reigns in the US, such as eye surgery and cosmetic procedures, costs have fallen and quality had gone remarkably up.

Pfizer also dropped its inhaleable insulin treatments last week, for a net loss of 3 billion USD. Think pharma would dare risk that kind of capital if every country in the world tried to squeeze it down to marginal cost pricing schemes?

And 1.5% of your income? Health spending in Canada is roughly 10% of GDP, so you're getting boned out of 10% if consumption power through one vehicle or another (direct taxation, imbedded taxes, reduced supply). Getting health costs down to 1.5% of income is pure fantasy for a modern society. I'd also point out that since doctors get paid peanuts in Canada, America has nearly 20% more per capita.. but again, we could go back and forth all day. I'll just the American system isn't a free market system; it's a bastardized system that has the worst elements of socialized (corporate provided) medicine and free market elements.

RE: Designed to infame Americans
By Felofasofa on 10/21/2007 9:26:47 PM , Rating: 2
Fact is, those with insurance (ie, anybody who gives enough of a damn to work at someplace even as low as Starbucks) in the US get the best care a man can get.

That is absolute bollocks, why have 40 million people not got insurance? Your unemployment is not that high. You're telling me all those low paid Mexicans have adequate health cover? You've been smoking to much of the herb again my friend.
Getting health costs down to 1.5% of income is pure fantasy for a modern society.

It might be fantasy in your Country but it's fact in ours. Of course the very rich who have private health cover absolutely detest paying 1.5% of their taxable income toward the medicare levy, - my heart bleeds for them - truly.
Whether it's sustainable in the long term is debatable, but as of now the Australian Health System is considered the best in the world. Dare I say a country with Social Equity ;)

RE: Designed to infame Americans
By Ringold on 10/21/2007 11:40:24 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of those are people who are offered insurance at reduced rates but decide instead of paying when they're healthy to go uninsured. Which is, of course, exactly what you'd expect; those who don't need a product not buying it, while the more elderly or sick who do need it pony up. I don't have the statistics in front of me but I saw some very, very interesting figures on insurance coverage rates which essentially proves that thesis; we have close enough to full coverage among the older demographics.

Hell, I'm a prime example of that. I could get great coverage right now but I'm rolling the dice, as economic liberty demands that I be able to do, and choosing to invest that money elsewhere.

And sorry if I don't give a hoot about illegal low paid Mexicans mooching off of our ER services. And don't dare say anything -- what, with Australia's wonderful handling of its indigenous people, ya'll can really look down your noses at us,eh? At least our indigenous folk own all the casinos...

It might be fantasy in your Country but it's fact in ours.

No need for propaganda!

"It is funded, in part, through a taxation levy of 1.5 per cent of income."

All taxes go to general revenue at the end of the day; individual taxes are just government manipulation of the masses perception and the free market.

Old data, but it proves your health care fantasy is wrong none the less. Even with a clear pro-medicare bias it manages to admit it costs around 8.5% of GDP in 2000

Here's a common sense approach.

I'll take data from the two, divide, and the average portion of income ate by health care in Australia by the average man (not woman) would be around 6% (backing out wage inflation from the wage number to 2003).

Long story short: You've listened to too many left-wing "free health care" stump speeches. Everything has costs.

RE: Designed to infame Americans
By Felofasofa on 10/22/2007 12:19:50 AM , Rating: 2
8.5% of GDP is not bad for good health cover. From the data you supplied you guys are paying 15% of your GDP. Those figures strongly suggest you are not getting value for money from every health dollar spent. Someones ripping your system. Americans are not twice as healthy as the rest of the OECD yet you are paying twice as much. If anything you guys are less healthy, highest obesity rates etc, then again you're spending so much I guess you can afford to be so unhealthy.

By Farfignewton on 10/22/2007 9:14:46 PM , Rating: 2
Americans are not twice as healthy as the rest of the OECD yet you are paying twice as much. If anything you guys are less healthy, highest obesity rates etc

Hmmm... We're less healthy... and spending more on health care... I think... nope. Thought I was on to some type of correlation between the two, but clearly that's ridiculous. It must be the system. ;)

What a Misleading Headline
By CookieFactory on 10/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: What a Misleading Headline
By Griswold on 10/20/2007 11:39:58 AM , Rating: 3
Agreed, but:

Last time I was in China capitalism was thriving well and good, and people openly debated politics in public without secret police an OMGCOMMUNIST!!!11 tank rolling in taking people away to torture chambers. Don't let the distorted media representation of China fool you.

Ok then, capitalism is fine and dandy, but what about "real" freedom and human rights? Yep, thats not the same.

RE: What a Misleading Headline
By fifolo on 10/20/2007 12:04:00 PM , Rating: 5
It's a bit scary, how China and the US are looking more and more alike.

RE: What a Misleading Headline
By bisoy on 10/20/2007 1:43:06 PM , Rating: 2
This is exactly what i noticed the last time i was there. This version of Communism that China is currently in is not what i expected it to be.

RE: What a Misleading Headline
By lompocus on 10/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: What a Misleading Headline
By bangmal on 10/21/2007 9:22:26 AM , Rating: 1
How about raping and killing around the world?
going against the UN resolution for stealing oil or invading countries?

I am sure that is the freedom of doing anything and everything, the americans talking about.

Comeon, amercians lecturing about freedom? LOL, come on, the world is watching.

RE: What a Misleading Headline
By Timeless on 10/21/2007 4:19:23 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, come on, the world is watching.

Lol, the whole can watch. And Americans will be watching as the rest of the world struggles in WW III ;P /joke

By NT78stonewobble on 10/22/2007 7:48:57 AM , Rating: 2
Ah a Saddam luvah ?

Good you wanted to keep that guy. He was only responcible for what? 1.5 million deaths while he was at power.

Any undocumented stealing of oil or "invading countries" aside yay thx for supporting mass murderous dictators.

Says more about you than the US...

RE: What a Misleading Headline
By lompocus on 10/23/07, Rating: 0
RE: What a Misleading Headline
By CookieFactory on 10/20/2007 1:43:41 PM , Rating: 3
Pray tell, what are "real" freedoms and human rights? If you carve through all the BS, demonization, and propaganda, the only "real" freedom that Chinese citizens lack is freedom of political assembly and voting.

Believe it or not, 90-95% of the everyday freedoms we enjoy as US citizens are enjoyed by Chinese citizens.

RE: What a Misleading Headline
By Ringold on 10/20/2007 5:48:35 PM , Rating: 2
I loved reading recently in The Economist about riots in China over price controls.. not that prices were too high or too low but because, as Economist explained it, it went so deeply against their inate preference for capitalism and free market operations.

At any rate, in your defense, Hong Kong worked wonderfully without political freedoms which you describe. On the other hand, however, it had an absolute minimalist government (that I wish we had), and was kept in check by British oversight. The rest of China has no such minimalist government so it's results are likely to be different.. and they themselves admit a large amount of corruption and insufficient accountability. Nothings perfect of course and they could do a lot better.

I would like to see if they could manage an effective government over the long term though that's dedicated to the interests of its people without really being elected. I doubt they'll do it but it'll be interesting.

"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki