No, just... No. The ONLY reason the US is "prospering" is because of the fact that every other country was anihilated thoroughly in the 2 world wars.

Well,  whose fault is that? Shouldn't France and other countries be able to protect themselves?  I mean America was essential into winning both of those wars.  Why was America so powerful and European countries so weak?  You also seem to forget how much money America loaned to the bigger European nations after the war.  Much of which,  Never was repaid I'm sure.

Actually no it wasn't. The WWI was already being won when the US showed up and they just really showed up and din't do anything critical, certainly they didn't turn the war around. In WWII the US didn't do SHIT. In fact the Germans were pulling troops from the east so they could slow the Russians down, because they knew the Russians would show no mercy if they reached Berlin before the US. Sad part? The Russians still got there first, talk about fail. All the US did in WWII was show up and die on a beach.

No one else had any industry or any development. No one had anythign elft. In fact it's kind of pathetic that a nation which got levelled by the Germans and took 20 million in casualties, was able to "compete" with a nation which was thoroughly unafected.

What European nations 'competed' with America toe to toe?  It wasn't until a full 30 years after WWII that Europe even started to make a push.  Even still,  not one of those countries individually has the production of the US. 

Communism and Russia?

Not a single factory was destroyed, no civilians died, no homeland attacks (Pearl Harbor was a millitary base and tha was it). So no, US's prosperity is based on the fact that no one else had anything, and that all the rich and smart people feld to the US. Thinkig otherwise is pure ignorance.

Pearl Harbor had civilians that died.   US's prosperity is purely based on an econmic system that works combined with a form of government that works.  A system that appeases the people from all walks of life.

In the only study of happiness, the US ranked rather low, especially compared vs countries in Europe. Though it was a metastudy yadda yadda.

As to your elected thing. Take my AIDS cure as an example. You aren't electing naything. Those people can raise the price as high as they wish. It would be the political equivalent of a Dictatorship. No thank you. I'd rather have the government take it. The job of every business is to do better than the competitors, and if opssible, drive them out of business. Yes prices may lower, but as soon as there is no alternative they more than make up for it.

Now that's just sad.  Why should some bureaucrat decide what's best for you and your life?   That's so weak.

I'd rather have no one take my money and I get everything in return for free. But if I had to choose, I want a plitician to take it than a businessman. And I hate government, I'm from an ex-Communist country...

@Kasz You have people like that in the US, too. Just because you don't know about it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Poverty levels, I believe, are roughly the same in both the US and the UK.

Watch this if you want to know just how badly some Americans have to live: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD65UKgB6hU

It's a stream of a BBC documentary (you can't watch it on the BBC site because you're outside of the UK).

The problem is with the business part. Because the moment companies see you depend on them too much they will instantly try to milk you as much as possible. What will happen under the capitalistic model owuld be something along this way:

Company A invents cure for AIDS first. There are no other cures known, the company patents the cure. The demand is high and there are no other copmetitors so they start charging a ridiculous amount, oen which only the top 5% and less can afford to pay. Any following company will probably get sued, due to the patent filed earlier. How many ways do you think people can take care of AIDS?

See what happens? It's kind of how Time Warner tried goign the way of content based billing instead of speed based. Thankfully they got pressured from the government and people threatened to switch and they changed that. What happens if there were no other companies to switch to and the government did as what you said and just chilled in the back?

If it's a private business, it won't work. Unless like the red corss or some non-profit organization comes up with the cure.

The poverty levels are the same... but that's not the same as quality of life.

Poverty as the way your talking about is "relative poverty" which is ranked within a country.  If you have a more socialistic way of spreading the wealth... your going to score higher on a "poverty" ranking.  The fact that the US and UK are so close more highlights the differences.

Also these people live well better then what Nintendomination was talking about.  Due to things such as food banks as mentioend.  The video is pretty sensationalistic honestly. 

For example... that house... lots of tracks of land have sold for a dollar even before the economic criss.

The Gini coeefcient barely rose under bush... at all.  Which is the distribution of wealth.

George W. Bush was the best president in regards to keeping the gap between the rich and poor down since WW2.

Like seriously... this is just a poorly done documentry.

Mafoo I already made my case on why business and healthcare should stay completely separate and Viper1's counter's were definitely not adequate. For the record after that I just said that it shouldn't be non-profit organizations but government hiring researchers.

Basically business and health care should never be taken together.