Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 August 14

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 14

What sort of photographic processes are these?

The history of photography and list of photographic processes articles are kind of overwhelming, so maybe someone here can help me... I'm going through old family photos and some are super old. One is made of metal and is probably some sort of daguerrotype or tintype or something. When did these sorts of metal photographs fall out of common use? Another photo is somehow embedded in glass, or is itself glass. What type of photograph is this, and when was it made? Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

From your descriptions, sounds like a tintype and an ambrotype. Compare them to the illustrations in the articles. Ambrotypes were in the decade spanning the 1850s and 1860s, and tintypes replaced them in the 1860s.- Nunh-huh 07:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Best investment

Which of this investing option are best strategies either invest in money market, fixed income, structured products or equities. please give recomendations.ty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.188.130.36 (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully someone will be able to give information on the different strategies and the state they're currently in, but firstly, under our General and risk disclaimers, I'd recommend you don't take financial advice from Wikipedia. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You can find more information by reading our articles on money market, fixed income, structured product, equities and their linked articles. The "best" investment strategy will depend on whether you want to invest a lum sum or make regular deposits; how much you can invest; how long you can invest it for; how liquid you want your investment to be; how much risk you want to take on; what level of income you want to receive; what overall yield you want to receive; your tax status; what other investments you have and probably twenty other factors. So your question is like asking "which is the best colour" - there is no single answer. A good rule of thumb is to assume that free financial advice is worth what you pay for it. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the answer depends on each individual's circumstances and assumptions. However, virtually all financial advisors agree that diversification is a crucial part of any investment strategy. So you should be sure to spread your investments among asset classes. Marco polo (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat with 202 and wondering along similar lines. Is there any study/data on investment pattern/strategies/outcome for say, the past 30 years for say, the US/CAD population (or maybe in a certain annual income range)? I tried to google for it but I got mostly for/against investment in education and/or health care. Royor (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think The Intelligent Investor is a good place to start for a sensible take on investing. It looks at a lot of data (I think going back a hundred years in some cases), but keep in mind the last edition was published in 1971. There is a reprint, with commentary by Jason Zweig that tries to tie it in with modern examples. TastyCakes (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Warren Buffett and I agree with TastyCakes. Read that book. Tempshill (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The best strategy huh? That depends -- do you want to lose money, make money, or keep yourself occupied? The only sure strategy I know of is something akin to Warren Buffett's: identify a quality product that is appearing on new markets. For instance, about seven years ago I noticed how good Pepsi tasted. I figured there would be major growth in Asia. So if I had sunk $10,000 into PepsiCo I'd probably be looking at $12,000 ten years later. Not a very exciting profit. This is why I don't invest. Vranak (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that your observation that Pepsi was tasty and was ready to expand into new markets was a fairly obvious one, and had therefore been factored into the stock price by the market. I'm sure Buffet would be the first to tell you - just because a company is great, doesn't mean it's a good stock to buy at any price. TastyCakes (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Two other points then:

1. Your perception should be more astute than that of potential or actual investors in PepsiCo

You need to know that the Chinese will like Pepsi more than Coke, but others must believe the opposite. You can think of like this: you're taking the Coke backers' money, even if the complexities of the market make this 'theft' 'not that simple'.

2. Your perception must be congruent with that of an emerging market

(i.e. The Chinese need to agree with you that Pepsi tastes good).

Vranak (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree the book is good but I'm wondering if there are other similar study/data other than the book. For example: This is the Average household expenditures of a typical Edmonton/Vancouver family in 2007. I'm guessing investment would fall under Personal insurance payments and pension contributions (which is CAD$3810 for Vancouver). I tried but couldn't find further breakdown (what people did using this $3810). It doesn't even have to be a study, even just a very general raw data on what people had done would be great. Royor (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Any professional financial adviser worth listening to would refuse to answer the OP's question. First, there is no information on the client; second, there is no information on the client's current financial situation; and third, there is no information on the client's risk profile. All of the above advice, if given by a professional, would be illegal in many jurisdictions. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but how much of the "risk assessment" is actually any good anyway? When you go to a Canadian bank to buy mutual funds, they will put you through a test to supposedly decide your "risk tolerance" (based on age, financial need, general bullishness etc) and what mutual funds you should buy as a result. Yet if you look at the histories of those funds that story doesn't really play out - with the exception of the "super safe funds" (which you can be assured will trundle along at somewhere close to the inflation rate) they tend to be all over the map, and many if not most do not outperform the index. On top of that you pay near-extortionist rates for a lot of these funds - over 3% in many cases. I first went to a bank to buy mutual funds when I was in my third year or university or so, and not knowing any better let the "financial adviser" (a young guy probably a couple years out of some unrelated arts degree) sell me on this computer designed portfolio business. What seems clear to me now is that the bank was not particularly interested in me making the soundest investment choices but using their products. Had they been more interested in the former, they should have pointed me to low fee index funds and bond funds, an area my bank (BMO) is not particularly good at. The only way to properly invest (in my opinion) is to educate yourself - you cannot depend on the bank telling you the best thing to do. Now I'm not saying people shouldn't listen to so called financial experts, bank supplied or otherwise. But they should not depend entirely on one source, particularly not one with a vested interest in you buying their product. TastyCakes (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Cross-party voting in US federal elections

Is there any data about voting for candidates not in the voter's party in US federal elections? Such as whether Republicans or Democrats tend to do it more, and if it's done more often for Representative, Senate or Presidential candidates. Thanks. ÷seresin 09:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This may be a naive question, from a Brit, but isn't a voter's party simply the party whose candidate the voter votes for? And as it's a more-or-less secret ballot, how could there be any reliable data on who voted for whom anyway? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

From voter registration: In some states, when registering to vote, one may declare an affiliation with a political party. This declaration of affiliation does not cost any money, and it is not the same as being a dues-paying member of a party; for example, a party cannot prevent anybody from declaring his or her affiliation with them, but it can refuse requests for full membership. Some states, including Michigan, Virginia, and Washington do not have party affiliation with registration.

Perhaps exit polls could give data on who voted for whom. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If the show Blackadder has any truth, it seems that it was tradition for candidates/prospective MPs to not vote for themselves at elections - i.e. gift their vote to an opponent. Not sure if that's true thoguh - Blackadder likes to mix reasonably accurate history with silliness and made up stuff! 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

CNN exit polls for the 2006 House and 2004 Presidential elections give breakdown by party. It's not much to go on though. (via). AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A tangent related to primaries and party registration:

In states with closed primaries (e.g., Maryland, where I've served as an election judge), you can vote in a party's primary only if you're registered--with the board of elections, not with the party itself. (The Maryland voter registration form allows you to "affiliate" with any of six recognized parties.) That's because the closed primary is how the party chooses its candidate who will run in the general election.

This means that you must be a registered Republican to vote in the Republican primary. You can, of course, change your party affiliation at any time; if you do so before the cutoff for the primary, you can switch from one party in order to vote in its primary, then switch back later.

Independent ("unaffiliated") voters can cast ballots in the primary only for non-partisan offices, if there are any (local school board, county sheriff, etc.).

Party affiliation means nothing in terms of voting in the general election. Regardless of registration, you can vote for whatever candidate you please.

--- OtherDave (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Where you're most likely to get crossover in the U.S. primaries is either as a protest against your own party, or more likely, to deliberately vote for a "weaker" candidate in the opposite party. Which is really only effective when done en masse, of course. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A perhaps more common case (since it's less cunning and dependent on mass-crossover) is in districts that are safely Republican or Democratic, the primary essentially decides the winner. If you want to have an effect on the outcome, your only chance to do so is in the primary. --Sean 14:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

In the U.S. when the President is an incumbent up for reelection, from your own party, and is virtually assured of the nomination, there is temptationto crossover and vote for the idiot/clown candidate from the other party, so he/she will be easy to defeat. But the rub is, Mr/Ms Idiot might actually win and then you would have four years of the country lurching around with idiotic policies which have a harmful effect on the entire world. It can take a long time to recover from four or eight years of idiot/clown administration. Edison (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Luckily, that almost never happens in the U.S. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is plenty of data of the kind you're asking about. They are based on polling data (since actual votes are secret) but are usually pretty accurate. Fivethirtyeight.com has tons of links to all kinds of polls every day. 70.90.174.101 (talk) 05:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Keeping the information from AlmostReadytoFly in mind, the basic question is how voters define themselves. In paeticular at what level does one voye more for the party and less for the candidate?

• In very local elections, where issues might include installation of a traffic light at a particular corner, keeping libraries open for an extra hour per day, adding more sanitation workers, and so forth, one might know the candidates or attend a question-and-answer sezzion, and paerty affiliation would be less important than the candidates' answers.
• In voting for the US House of Representatives, in the vasr majority of cases, the candidates are noy personally known to the majority of voters, the districts are too large for any meeting to accommodate any more thn the tiniest fraction of the electorate, and the media is likely to shunt examination of such races to Sunday Morning when hardly anyone is paying attention. This usually goes by straight party vote.
• The US Senate - and even more, the Presidency - flip back to personality contests.

So, the short answer to your question, US voters are most likely to stray from their normal party in voting for the President. Of course, that might also be the harbinger of a long-term change in affiliation. B00P (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to health care reform in the US

Here in the UK, the media (notably the BBC) is pretty aghast at the criticism levelled at the NHS by the opponents to health care reform in the US. What they haven't explained is why there is so much criticism of President Obama's plans? For me it seems to be a no-brainer that reforming the system of expensive insurance that leaves millions of American without access to affordable health care is something that is long overdue. Astronaut (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well being in Canada, maybe I shouldn't comment, but I think the bottom line is that health care does work for the majority of Americans (particularly the ones that pay attention to what's going on around them and, critically, actually vote), despite it being a very cost-ineffective system, and people are opposed to change based on fear of losing what they have, perhaps most specifically of losing control of their health care to the government (whatever that means) and having to endure longer waiting periods (as in Canada). However, the health care problems have been getting more severe in recent years - specifically, more and more people are becoming uninsured or under-insured as prices escalate - so I think most people are open to change in the system. There is just huge disagreement on how best to do that. TastyCakes (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The following is not my opinion. It is a very generalized synopsis of complaints about nationalized healthcare in the United States that probably isn't given airtime in foreign press:

• The U.S. does have government run free healthcare for the military. It is considered by many to be terrible.
• There are many free clinics throughout the United States that offer free health care on demand. The fear is that these will be shut down and replaced with government run clinics that require a long waiting period for care.
• Many people do not have insurance because they don't want insurance. That means that the number of uninsured people who want insurance is far lower than what is reported.
• This healthcare will not be free. Instead of paying for insurance and then having the insurance company pay the health care bills, we will pay higher taxes and then have the government pay the health care bills. Experience has shown that the United States government cannot be trusted with handling money.
• Finally, there is the counter-argument to the "Socialized medicine is better". At any point in time, there are people from countries with great socialized medicine programs coming to the United States for care. Why would they come to a country with worse health care?

I hope you can see that the opposition to nationalized health care isn't based purely on stupidity. Some people have somewhat valid reasons for their opposition. -- kainaw™ 16:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of issues that are clouding the water. One of the biggies is that the government plan will make other insurance non-competative and that employers will cancel the other insurance plans in favor of the government option. Many Americans that I personally know have doubts over whether the government can actually operate this better then the existing system. That and it costs $1,000,000,000,000.00. Googlemeister (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Further, I think a lot of people believe some of the often cited problems with the current system (defensive testing due to malpractice insurance, lack of emphasis on preventative measures, high drug prices etc) can be solved without nationalizing the whole thing. TastyCakes (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

One trillion, zero hundred zeroty-zero billion, zero hundred zeroty-zero million, zero hundred zeroty-zero thousand, zero hundred zeroty-zero dollars and no cents? Grumble. Every one of those zeros is most likely wrong. —Tamfang (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Much of the difference is rhetorical.

Here in the UK, it's common to talk about the NHS and associated services as 'public healthcare'. The use of 'public' evokes the idea that the service is of the people, by the people, for the people; 'healthcare' suggests the idea of something supportive, and targeted towards upholding people's general health. And attitudes reflect this - I regularly go to my doctor for a check-up, because I know it won't cost me any more than not doing so, and I want to have my general level of health upheld.

In the US (where I have travelled extensively and spoken to quite a range of people on this topic), the discussion is framed in terms of 'socialized medicine', a phrase which most British people would not have recognised before the past week's news reporting. By calling it 'socialized', there is an obvious comparison drawn with socialist systems in the stricter sense, such as those of Cold War era Eastern Europe. Unlike the UK's current system (or Sweden's, for that matter), those systems did epitomise much of what was bad about socialist or (nominally) communist government from the point of view of a typical citizen. But beyond that, and less cynically, 'socialized' also brings up the idea of the individual's safety being entrusted to a corporate entity, which will not know the patient's mind or feelings as well as the patient does personally. In an environment where (of one if sufficiently affluent) one has reasonably free choice over one's treatment, sacrificing some of that choice will inevitably look unappealing. And by saying 'medecine' rather than 'healthcare', the product, rather than the outcome, is emphasised, leading to a focus on the commodity value of individual treatments rather than the holistic effect of the system.AlexTiefling (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem with the media (in Britain I assume as much as in Canada) is that we only normally see the most ridiculous protesters, because it makes the news more entertaining. So, most people don't really believe there will be death squads coming to execute your grandparents, or that this is a communist plot; at least, I have to assure myself that people don't really believe this, because I don't think I would be able to live on the same planet as them. Anyway, "free universal health care" in Canada is pretty cool, but it's not really free, and it's not totally universal; I can go to the doctor for a checkup, and I can go to the emergency room in the hospital, and I can give them my OHIP card and that's that. But sometimes government health insurance doesn't cover everything, especially if you want small luxuries like a private hospital room; and sometimes you can be covered for things by private insurance, or at least insurance offered by your employer (which is of course paid for out of your paycheque), that either are not covered by government insurance or are just covered better by private insurance. There are rare cases where someone's life is ruined because they have to pay for health care in Canada, but for the vast majority of people it's not something you ever notice or think about, it's just there and it is apparently free. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It is mostly a fear of changing something, mixed up with half-baked rhetoric about socialism and democracy and things like that. It is a far less informed and rational debate than one would hope, for such an important issue. There is a large camp of "oh, the status quo sucks, but I haven't seen anything better," which will never result in anything being done. And there is a huge, huge, huge amount of scare-mongering, misrepresentation, and out-right ignorance. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want some more reading OP, we have an article with some good sources: Health care reform debate in the United States Livewireo (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "President Obama's plans" are not a Canadian-style or UK-style government-paid or government-run health care system. No voter has read the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, which was recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives; it is over 1000 pages in length. (I figure no Congressperson has read it either, for that matter.) Additional legislation is planned but there will be fatigue as time goes on and IMO the probability of success for each piece of legislation will drop as the next two bills are introduced. Obama himself confused me personally a couple days ago with his off-the-cuff answer to a reporter's question where he stated that Canadian-style health care would not work in the US. (Errr, why is that?) I figure that 99% of the public does not know what the health care bill entails. In general the USA has a history of claiming to dislike the government and bitching about high taxes (while simultaneously actually growing the size and role of government over time, even in the Reagan era). The protesters are of those who claim to dislike an increased government role in society in general. They think that they will pay a lot of money and get little or nothing in return — the "Harry and Louise"-style complaint is that there will be bureaucracy and "a government bureaucrat will decide whether you get a hip transplant". (This disregarding the fact that currently it's a corporate bureaucrat who decides this.) There is also a cold element, IMO, related to the American Dream that "worthy" people who work hard become prosperous; those who are not prosperous are not hard workers or worthy, so why should the hard workers pay for their health care? Tempshill (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) If people understand the difference between liberalism in US (which Obama ascribes to) and liberalism in Europe (see the liberalism article, the criticisms may be more understood. The American liberalism is very egalitarian, emphasizing equality and regulation, where conservatism places a greater emphasis on personal freedoms and privatization (and therefore less government regulation). The two ideologies are often presented as if they are mutually exclusive. Even though there has been an increase in liberalism in the past few years (hence Obama's victory), there is still a large number of Americans that are unaccepting of that ideology, and therefore hostile to these types of reform. —Akrabbim^talk 17:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course the BBC would be aghast over criticisms of NHS, BBC is a government network! Wrad (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a misleading way of thinking about it. The government does not generally exert editorial control over the BBC (and the times when it has have been infamous). To quote the article: "The BBC is required by its charter to be free from both political and commercial influence and to answer only to its viewers and listeners." It might be fairer to say Britons are aghast at the criticism out of national pride and because much of it isn't true. Note how David Cameron frequently has to reassure the public that the Tories won't harm the NHS.

POV: Much of the criticism of the BBC's alleged (and not entirely fictitious) partiality comes from strongly right-wing media, including competitors with a vested interest in its failure. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A lot of this sort of stuff happened in Europe, fifty or sixty years ago it used to be like the states. Doctors campaigned against the state interfering in their work and poor people died after they had sold everything. Bishops argued against it saying it was creeping communism and an affront to God. Politicians flung mud at each other. Even today there's real problems with dentistry. This all seems to just be a rerun. Dmcq (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Americans would be pretty ticked if the government tried to take over the news. It's illegal for the government to broadcast Al Hurra, for example, within the US borders. It's an entirely different world over here. People don't consider themselves "subjects" of any government or any person, and never have, and for centuries have bristled at the very idea (see events surrounding the US flag in the 1908 Olympics in London. US conservatives don't like big government, don't trust it, and don't want it taking over the press, the health system, or anything else of the sort. Americans have been this way for a long time. Nothing new under the sun here. Wrad (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What about NPR? I think it's a stretch to say the BBC has "taken over" the news, it's not like there aren't other news sources, and in case you missed it the first time, it's written into its charter that the BBC is supposed to be independent. And I think they do a pretty good job of being fair, at least as good as the major American outlets. The coverage seems to me much broader geographically than American channels and the overall quality of the reporting is high, in my opinion. I'm not sure most Americans would object to it on the ideological grounds you cite, but rather the having to pay the license fee. TastyCakes (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

NPR is not even close to BBC. If you look at the funding section of it's article, you will see that only about 2% of its funding come from government grants. The rest is private donations and fees charged to member stations. Wrad (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

While I won't disagree that the funding is very different, do you not agree that their news programs come from similar philosophies? That philosophy being to provide independent, non commercial news to citizens, with government support (which according to the article, accounted for the majority of NPRs funding in earlier decades). It was my understanding of your previous post that you think such a philosophy doesn't exist within the US, but I believe it does and that the NPR (and PBS) represent that, although in recent memory they have been publicly funded at a fraction of what the BBC receives (so I would grant you that the mantra appears stronger in the UK than the US). TastyCakes (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The only thing the conservatives in the US seem comfortable letting the government run is the military. Googlemeister (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

And even there they've been big fans of privatization. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Astronaut asks "why there is so much criticism of President Obama's plans?" Of course any response to a why question, especially about current events, will bring a POV answer. Here is mine: In place of the nonprofit, government-regulated health care system that most industrial nations have, the United States has a privatized health care industry, with several sectors reaping rich profits from it. There is the insurance sector and the pharmaceutical sector, there are doctors and hospitals, all free to charge people, some facing a choice between life and death, whatever they think they can get. Hundreds of thousands of very affluent people in the United States, comprising a substantial portion of the moneyed class, derive their rich incomes from this industry. Obama's plan, by setting up a government-run insurance program that would have the power to negotiate costs, threatens those rich incomes. Consequently, those rich people and their companies and industry associations, and the media personalities and politicians beholden to them (for example, for contributions to finance their political campaigns) are advancing a vigorous campaign against Obama's plan, often involving outright lies. The US media may be reluctant to question these distortions and lies for fear of losing advertising revenue from the industries advancing those distortions and lies.

I also want to respond to TastyCake's claim that healthcare works for the majority of Americans. I think that there are conservatives making that claim in Canada in the hope of opening up private investment opportunities in healthcare in Canada, but I can testify, as an American with one of the better healthcare plans available, that it does not work so well. First, I face long waits for an appointment with a doctor, often more than a month for my own "primary care physician". I need to see the primary care physician before I can be approved to see a specialist, again after waiting for many months for the next available appointment. Then, if my physician or specialist wants to order a procedure, I need to request my insurer's approval. Fortunately, I haven't needed any serious procedures, but there are nightmare stories out there about insurers denying approval for needed procedures (to protect their profits, of course). Finally, and most serious of all, even this problematic access to healthcare will disappear for me completely if I lose my job, or if I dare to leave my job. (Many Americans are shackled to jobs they hate because it is their only access to healthcare.) Of course, not every job comes with insurance. Without job-based insurance, Americans, unless they are in extreme poverty and qualify for government-funded Medicaid, face astronomical bills for healthcare. For example, an office visit with a doctor can be $250. Simple operations can be $8,000. More serious treatments involving overnight stays in hospitals can cost $50,000 to $100,000 or more. If you are very rich, to the point that tens of thousands of dollars are trifling expenses, you can get very good healthcare in the United States with little trouble. But for the vast majority, the system does not work well. Marco polo (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Marco polo's answer is most to the point, actually — the why is indeed because a lot of affluent and wealthy people will see their incomes be reduced, and all the arguments against more involvement of the US government in health care are just fronts. The money is the real reason that you see a lot of these disagreements. Tempshill (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The US healthcare biz is wildly profitable. They spend 1.4 million dollars every day on lobbying US lawmakers. They are not going to give up their cash cow without a brutal fight. This guy Wendell Potter (former healthcare flak who grew a conscience) is pretty interesting: [1]. --Sean 21:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess it all comes down to this : "State, bad ; Market, good". The rest is just a way to fill up the stereotype (and there are huge vested interests that are ready to feed the true believers with whatever they want to hear). No one really cares about the basic facts : the US spends 18% of their GDP on health care, 1 us resident out of 6 is without insurance. As a comparison, France spends only 11% of its GDP on healthcare, everyone is insured by the "sécurité sociale", even people who have just lived for 6 mouths in France, and we enjoy a longer life expectancy. By the way, the "sécurité sociale" has nothing to do with the British NHS : there are many ways to organise a public health system. The French one is much more market oriented. Gede (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think TastyCakes (mmm...Tastykakes) has it best. Fifteen percent of Americans lack health insurance. That's an extraordinary figure. But it also means that 85% of Americans do have health insurance. And surveys show most Americans like their health-insurance plans. So most people may have something to lose through healthcare reform. America actually has an excellent healthcare system for people who have good health insurance, can afford their copayments and premiums and don't acquire a horrible disease that ramps up their out-of-pocket expenses. In America, there is no doctor shortage and short waits to see specialists. The hospitals there actually advertise to try to attract patients. Since people tend to vote with self-interest in mind, proponents of healthcare reform have to convince the majority of people, who have health insurance and like it, what's in it for them. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you’re all joyously missing the point. No one in US politics or (especially) the media cares one bit whether something offends Brits, Canadians or anyone else. Why are some people bad-mouthing healthcare services elsewhere? Because they can’t come up with purely domestic arguments to defend their positions. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

olympic cities

What is the least populous (at the time) city that has hosted the modern (1896 AD an later) Summer Olympic games? Googlemeister (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Athens only had 123,000 in 1896. The next smallest seems to be Helsinki, than Saint Louis75.41.110.200 (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Antwerp would have had a rather small population when it held the Olympics. It may have not been much larger than St. Louis or Helsinki at the time. --Jayron32 04:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

According to our own article it had over 300 000 in 1925, so it was probably similar when it held the Olympics. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Robert Mugabe suspect of killing people?

Is it just rumours or Robert Mugabe have actually kill millions of peoples? Everyone and teachers have said mugabe have kill millions of peoples. Have other national leaders done stuff like this? Is it true or they just hear wrong stuff?--69.229.39.33 (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Mugabe is claimed to have directed policies which led to many starving (and to have had opposition members disappeared), not to have personally killed them. Many other leaders have also done such thing unfortunately. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any accusations of his personally killing anyone, but there are plenty of accusations of him ordering killings. The veterans from the revolutionary war tend to go around beating people to death to make sure they vote the right way, that kind of thing. (Obviously, none of these accusations has been proven in a court of law, but since Mugabe appoints the judges that doesn't mean a great deal.) --Tango (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)