Al Gore, what a loser.

[TX Bill]

without naming names we are both talking about the same sect of terrorists, them lot that consider 'non believers' infidels. thats not to taint the law abiding pleasant individuals that believe in that faith.

im not sure if certain extremists would go the distance if it meant condemning their ENTIRE family to death.

tolerance is what we supposedly pursue, but its flimsy.

We are and I'm certain that they would condemn their own families to death if it meant them going to so-called paradise.

And yes, we are not stereotyping Muslims here. We are clearly talking about terrorists who believe in radical Islam and know no other way than to kill and destroy. The Muslim friends that I have believe nothing of the sort and are as peaceful as you and I.

 

[chicoazul]

In fairness to Bill, he's took it from all angles tonight and batted back with gusto.

Im liking this. Continue.

 

[TX Bill]

In fairness to Bill, he's took it from all angles tonight and batted back with gusto.

Im liking this. Continue.

Nah. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I wouldn't begrudge anyone their opinion as they don't begrudge me mine.

Political arguments have been going on since the dawn of time. Funny as if you'd have caught me 20 years ago, I wouldn't have given a rat's ass about politics or similar topics.

Of course I didn't know jack about Everton either so I really would have been hurting.

 

[SuitsBlue]

well, in that case, implement the new regime (families) and see if such a stance puts off the easily led from partaking.

prevention better than repair.

such naive individuals (notably young disaffected men) are indoctrinated at some point, underly consequences before this happens.

 

[TX Bill]

well, in that case, implement the new regime (families) and see if such a stance puts off the easily led from partaking.

prevention better than repair.

such naive individuals (notably young disaffected men) are indoctrinated at some point, underly consequences before this happens.

Spot on !!!

 

[Rob]

Communism usually benefits the people at the top with those at the bottom barely making it. Foreign policy of Cuba? Don't think so but yes, there are times I wish my country would just close up shop for awhile and let things stand as they are. Unfortunately, 9/11 changed that type of thinking and no telling when things might calm down.

I would hate to have a national health care system just due to the issues that come with that. Our current system isn't perfect but I think it's better than the alternatives.

Man, too bad Cuba doesn't become a democracy. I could only imagine how well they'd do from a tourist standpoint if one day, all Americans could fly straight to Havana.

They'd kill it as I'm sure there are plenty of nice areas in Cuba (I know very little of the island itself). I'm guessing they'd bring in so much revenue that they'd be able to renovate/repair areas that really need it. That and the standard of living would more than likely improve.

HOLY CRAP!!!

someone hold me back, my tongue is bleeding I'm biting it so much!

 

[Rob]

]We are and I'm certain that they would condemn their own families to death if it meant them going to so-called paradise. [/B]

And yes, we are not stereotyping Muslims here. We are clearly talking about terrorists who believe in radical Islam and know no other way than to kill and destroy. The Muslim friends that I have believe nothing of the sort and are as peaceful as you and I.

You mean like sending sons and daughters off to the desert to fight for a way of life?

You are classic tx, seriously. and stop calling people liberal like that dismisses whatever they think or say.

I can sympathise with some of these "terrorists" they get their friends and family killed because some country didn't like the leader, well... GUESS WHAT? they didn't like him much themselves, but they didn't want US (make a note of that word US not U.S.) carpet bombing their country.

I saw a news piece on CNN about a boy who joined the army because his dad was on one of the planes that crashed on 9/11... he is a hero.

The boy in Iraq joins an army because his family is killed by an American or British bomb and he is a terrorist.

Double Standards?

 

[loosecranks]

Again, you bring the facts, and I'll listen. But don't sit here and try to tell me that a socialized medicine program would be an improvement over what we already have. People here know better.

Now that's not strictly true, is it, Bill?

ABCNews:Americans by a 2-1 margin prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system.


Usatoday: The U.S. health care system — touted as providing the best medical care in the world — is becoming more precarious to most Americans, who are rattled by rising costs, questions about quality and fears about the future.

A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

(CBS) Americans think the U.S. health care system is in need of major repairs, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll.

And that's just from the first page ...

Anyway, I can see Bill ain't for turning - on this or any other issue - so I'll take a little hiatus ...

 

[loosecranks]

You mean like sending sons and daughters off to the desert to fight for a way of life?

You are classic tx, seriously. and stop calling people liberal like that dismisses whatever they think or say.

I can sympathise with some of these "terrorists" they get their friends and family killed because some country didn't like the leader, well... GUESS WHAT? they didn't like him much themselves, but they didn't want US (make a note of that word US not U.S.) carpet bombing their country.

I saw a news piece on CNN about a boy who joined the army because his dad was on one of the planes that crashed on 9/11... he is a hero.

The boy in Iraq joins an army because his family is killed by an American or British bomb and he is a terrorist.

Double Standards?

It's men in black or white hats stuff, Rob - one side are 'evil-doers', the other only kill in the name of 'freedom' and 'righteousness'.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

If you say so, TX. I take it from that you don't actually know much about 'the alternatives'?

" I suspect that, ultimately, the most persuasive argument against the present system, for most Americans, will be that they are simply not getting bang for their bucks. Last year they spent $2.1trn, or roughly $7,000 per American, on health care - a figure expected to double by 2016, and which represents 16 per cent of the nation's GDP. Half of this is spent on just 5 per cent of the population. The average yearly cost of a family insurance plan purchased by employers is now $12,106, plus an additional $4,479 paid by the employee; as a result of these hugely increased costs, only 59.7 per cent of American workers are covered by their employers' health plans.

Yet what do Americans get from all this monumental expenditure? The leitmotif of Michael Moore's latest fulminating documentary, Sicko, which has already grossed more than $25m in the US since its release in June and opens in Britain this month, is that Britons, Cubans and the French receive much better health care than Americans - a theme that is largely true, but undermined by Moore's portrayal of those countries' systems as positively utopian. Britain spends just $2,560 per citizen on health care, Australia $3,128 and France $3,191; yet a report this year by the Commonwealth Fund (a highly respected American charity) found that the US lags well behind these countries in the quality, access, efficiency and outcome of their wildly differing expenditures.

Put more brutally, the US ranked 22nd in infant mortality (between Taiwan and Croatia), 46th in life expectancy (between St Helena and Cyprus) and 37th in health system performance (between Costa Rica and Slovenia). In the "efficiency" ratings, the US came last. More American women are dying in childbirth today than were decades ago. The non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation reports that 28 per cent of Americans have delayed their medical treatment, often for serious conditions, because of cost. And the Institute of Medicine calculates that 18,000 Americans die unnecessarily every year because they have no medical insurance."


Man, you've got faith, I'll give you that, but you, too, could do with taking a leaf out of Chico's book, and stop believing all that you're told.

Here's the rest of that article, if you're interested: http://www.newstatesman.com/200710040028

I don't know where you got your figures on UK expenditure, but in the last budget healthcare spending by the government was around £102 billion, which divided by the UK population works out at £1,711 each, or $3,488.55 at current exchange rates. It's worth baring in mind that expenditure on private healthcare in the UK is also estimated at around 1% of GDP, which at roughly 94 trillion pounds means another 94 billion in private spending. Divide all of that by the UK population and you get £3,224 each per year, or $6,573.41. What was that about believing what you're told?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

As for the private vs public side of the coin, I don't think that's the way to look at it. I think it's more about fairness. An insurance based system rewards those that at least try to live a healthy life. A public system punishes people that try and lead a healthy life.

Surely it's the fairest way to fund healthcare based on how it is used? The NHS is funded based on peoples earnings. It doesn't care less if you smoke, if you have a rubbish diet, don't exercise, drink to excess. Who cares? We'll just get those that do well in life to fund your poor lifestyle. That simply cannot be right.

Lets face it, any kind of public healthcare system funded by taxation is effectively charity, except that in this case the charity is forced out of you rather than voluntarily given. Morally that simply cannot be right.

I'm more than happy to pay my own way in life but if I'm expected to pay for others then I at least expect to be given the choice.

 

[atrottel]

Surely it's the fairest way to fund healthcare based on how it is used?

Unless you or your family have a chronic disease or disability. Or can't afford to pay for the insurance. Or aren't eligible for treatment because your coverage has run out or your disability has continued for too long.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

This is the thing though isn't it. Whenever you're not paying your own way you're relying on the charity of others. Charity in my eyes should always be a voluntary action. I think this sense of fair play is almost a genetic trait in humans.

Look at the immigration debate for instance. I doubt people have an issue with immigrants as individuals, they're only trying to do what's best for themselves after all. I suspect what most people don't like is that they perceive them to be getting something for nothing, ie the benefits of our 'free' health and education without paying into it.

 

[atrottel]

I almost admire your belief in the innate goodness of people, Bruce. I'm afraid I'm more cynical and, to be honest, I believe that people are inherently selfish and capable of believing and doing the most appalling things if left to their own devices.

I think your world would be more Darwinian than it already is. You believe that the richer sections of society would be happier to spend their money on retarded adults or the chronically disabled. I believe that they would rather pay for their next plastic surgery or the next helping of a $7.95 Triple Cheese Burger/Shrimp Combo.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Sure, I suspect many would do this but there seems to be a growing trend towards philanthropy amongst the very rich, and billions are donated annually by the not so rich. Maybe it is wishful thinking, I don't suppose I'll ever live in a society where the essential goodness of man is put to such a test.