President Obama

[TX Bill]

I have to go with Rob, trying to attach Communism to the concept of Socialised Healthcare is ridiculous. Thats what the Republicans would have you believe, as clearly they tried to paint Obama as a commy when you have zero concept of what socialism is. It was a slur designed to panic people into switching vote last minute and happily it failed.

There are some things which, in my opinion, should be the domain of your respective countries goverment - a social resposibility to look after the health of its people and lets be honest, the health care system in the States looks after those who are fortunate to have adequate healthcare either through their employer or through the necessary finances for their own private healthcare plan. People die because of the inadequacies in this system but hey you dont know them so its no importante.

Capitalism breeds a "[Poor language removed] you" attitude to fellow man.

VIVA LE REVOLUCION comrades.

chucks flare*

Ah yes, that "big government" is the solution to all of societies issues.

When in reality, it's the cause of most of the ills we have in society.

Capitalism isn't perfect pal, but in the grand scheme of things, it's been proven in the real world (not theory or textbooks) to be a much much better alternative to socialism, Marxism, Communism, dictatorships, you name it.

No, no system is perfect but I like the system we have here in the USA just fine and certainly better than any other so called "alternatives" out there.

People die every day here in the USA Chico and it isn't because we don't have socialized medicine in our country I can assure you.

 

[chicoazul]

Ok Bill, but do you consider pineapple on pizza to be an acceptable topping???????????

 

[TX Bill]

see , im confused now.

havent acorn members already been convicted of voter fraud of epic scale (atleast 2000 fraudulant votes each member -7 members) ?
obviously 7 bad apples doesnt mean you have to chop down the acorn tree , so to speak .
but bush rigged an election and now america has to ensure that doesnt happen again , for repulicans and democrats.

obama was a key player in the training , running , funding , campaigning and legal representation of acorn - thats fact.
my line of thinking is that if he cant keep that organisation in order , if there is no clarity in its objectives goals and proceedings , then what would an administration run by him be like ?
i think pointing out these issues would ensure obama doesnt make the same mistakes twice and in the long run would enhance his presidency.


you dont want another clinton or bush , constantly in the media being accussed of mix ups , cover ups , bias and shadey goings on.
question , check and question again , get all the skeletons out of the closet before january 20th , then when he takes over , let him actually concentrate on what a president should be doing.


ps just becouse some are against obama - doesnt make them a neo-nazi .its the eqiuvalant of democrats being called kopites or worse.
neither is pc or right

everyone has a right to a political view without name calling.

pps , why has bush and the republicans never been held to account for there rigging ? surely the evidence is there ?

Are you kidding? Our master..ahem, I meant Karl Rove certainly covered up all the evidence and paid of Diebold among many others to keep the voter fraud committed by the Republicans in both 2000 and 2004 a secret.

Shhhhhhhhhh......don't tell anyone.

 

[TX Bill]

Ok Bill, but do you consider pineapple on pizza to be an acceptable topping???????????

Not today.


*TX Bill reserves right to change answer depending on pizza topping climate at the time. Licks finger and sticks in the wind.

 

[chicoazul]

You horror. Commit to our cause.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Been out of this thread for a few pages, but a few things for folks to perhaps consider. With Britain being largely a secular place, the NHS is probably the nearest thing we have to a religion, so having a pop at it is only for the brave.

However, I shall have a go nonetheless If we look back to the origins of the old girl, it was founded based on the model of the Tredegar society for Welsh miners whereby they could voluntarily choose to pay in a proportion of their salary for healthcare. So how that became something that all people were forced into paying for is interesting, although perhaps not surprising (and perhaps reason for the socialist tag?).

Alas, lets assume forcing people to chip in is a noble endeavour and universal healthcare a good goal to aim for. Now lets make another assumption, that being that the majority of people are quite capable of paying for their own healthcare and that the universal element is in fact the wealthy (or as anyone that works pays in, the not so wealthy too) is in fact subsidising the poor. There is an interesting contrast here with a very recent example.

Tx mentioned that in America such a system exists whereby everyone gets a basic service, and those that work and have means can upgrade this service should they so wish. Recently just such a system has been proposed and accepted here in Britain. Drugs not authorised by NICE have previously been off limits to all because purchasing them would render the buyer invalid for all NHS care. In various surveys such behaviour has been branded “despicable”, “spiteful”, “perverse” and “inhuman”. And now the rules have been changed. So we now have a situation where all people have access to a set level of service but those that can upgrade are allowed to. Not only that, it seems people are rather supportive of just such a move. Considering the principles are the same, what does that say about the regular disdain heaped towards the American model?

Finally, and perhaps most importantly is the matter of demographics. It is this above all else that will, in my opinion, see the demise of tax payer funded healthcare. Throughout the developed world population is shifting so that national demographics are increasingly top heavy. More and more of our population are elderly. More and more are elderly and retired. More and more are elderly and are living for longer. More and more are elderly and are sick for longer. So we have less people working to support more people that aren't, and that have the temerity to be sick at the same time. This situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. The NHS was partly feasible because life expectancy was relatively low and we were entering the baby boom years. Now those boomers are old and need healthcare. As this article shows, in 1948 there were 6 workers to each retiree. By 2020 there will be just four.

This issue has already reared its head in the pensions debate and the unions have done their best to curb any attempts to raise the retirement age to counter the increasing life expectancy of us all.

It seems to me that a mixed funding system is inevitable.

 

[Slight_Return]

They changed the rules last week meaning patients can top up the NHS care without forfeiting the right to said care for free.

For the none uk residents, the previous system said that if you were to buy drugs (usually cancer drugs) that were not available to you on the NHS then in buying them, it was considered that you could then pay for basic NHS care that you had already payed for once via ones tax payments.

Think I have that right.

 

[McBain]

Been out of this thread for a few pages, but a few things for folks to perhaps consider. With Britain being largely a secular place, the NHS is probably the nearest thing we have to a religion, so having a pop at it is only for the brave.

However, I shall have a go nonetheless If we look back to the origins of the old girl, it was founded based on the model of the Tredegar society for Welsh miners whereby they could voluntarily choose to pay in a proportion of their salary for healthcare. So how that became something that all people were forced into paying for is interesting, although perhaps not surprising (and perhaps reason for the socialist tag?).

Alas, lets assume forcing people to chip in is a noble endeavour and universal healthcare a good goal to aim for. Now lets make another assumption, that being that the majority of people are quite capable of paying for their own healthcare and that the universal element is in fact the wealthy (or as anyone that works pays in, the not so wealthy too) is in fact subsidising the poor. There is an interesting contrast here with a very recent example.

Tx mentioned that in America such a system exists whereby everyone gets a basic service, and those that work and have means can upgrade this service should they so wish. Recently just such a system has been proposed and accepted here in Britain. Drugs not authorised by NICE have previously been off limits to all because purchasing them would render the buyer invalid for all NHS care. In various surveys such behaviour has been branded “despicable”, “spiteful”, “perverse” and “inhuman”. And now the rules have been changed. So we now have a situation where all people have access to a set level of service but those that can upgrade are allowed to. Not only that, it seems people are rather supportive of just such a move. Considering the principles are the same, what does that say about the regular disdain heaped towards the American model?

Finally, and perhaps most importantly is the matter of demographics. It is this above all else that will, in my opinion, see the demise of tax payer funded healthcare. Throughout the developed world population is shifting so that national demographics are increasingly top heavy. More and more of our population are elderly. More and more are elderly and retired. More and more are elderly and are living for longer. More and more are elderly and are sick for longer. So we have less people working to support more people that aren't, and that have the temerity to be sick at the same time. This situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. The NHS was partly feasible because life expectancy was relatively low and we were entering the baby boom years. Now those boomers are old and need healthcare. As this article shows, in 1948 there were 6 workers to each retiree. By 2020 there will be just four.

This issue has already reared its head in the pensions debate and the unions have done their best to curb any attempts to raise the retirement age to counter the increasing life expectancy of us all.

It seems to me that a mixed funding system is inevitable.

Bruce, reading your post is like drinking an awesome coffee.

It wakes you up and slaps you in the tastiest possible way.

Great post.

 

[toffeestillidie]

You're question should have been:

"If Canada's care is so good, why are people coming to the United States from Canada for healthcare?"

People on border states applying for Canadian citizenship for "better healthcare?" That's a new one. You sure you didn't confuse those people with all the liberals who said after the 2004 election that "If George Bush wins again, I'm moving to Canada." ??

And I'm still waiting for someone to address the inescapable fact that TX Tiburon made about healthcare in our country. The point that no one can be denied healthcare in this country based on the ability to pay. No one. If you are hurt, injured, sick, etc... and you go to a hospital, THEY CANNOT REFUSE TO TREAT YOU. I'm baffled honestly as to why that simple concept hasn't been grasped yet.

We don't need socialized medicine here. We don't want socialized medicine here. Simple really.

1. look at my post again, i clearly state routine care, not emergency care. routine care is preventative and can reduce the amount of proceducres people have to undergo later on, they're completely different things.

2. How nice of you to say we don't want socialized medicine here, i'm glad you're able to speak for the 47 million americans without healthcare, who i'm pretty sure would be over-[Poor language removed]-joyed to actually have healthcare. my dad is a goverment employee so i'm on his plan (for the next couple years), but the clinton plan for universal healthcare would essentially expand this type of plan government employees are on to everyone. i think a better way to revise your statement would be "you don't need socialized medicine. you don't want socialized medicine here. simple really"

the system is broken, which is why our health care costs are some of the highest in the world. also, because of america's high number of specialized doctors, we would likely still retain a flourishing private system if we went universal, you would just have to pay a tiny bit more in taxes for care that you wouldn't use. this drawback is more than worth it imo

 

[toffeestillidie]

Are you kidding? Our master..ahem, I meant Karl Rove certainly covered up all the evidence and paid of Diebold among many others to keep the voter fraud committed by the Republicans in both 2000 and 2004 a secret.

Shhhhhhhhhh......don't tell anyone.

why would he need to pay him? diebold seem more than willing to oblige without a bribe

i'd like to know why diebold atm machines give you a receipt to avoid fraud, but their voting machines don't :huh:

 

[Nebbiolo]

1. look at my post again, i clearly state routine care, not emergency care. routine care is preventative and can reduce the amount of proceducres people have to undergo later on, they're completely different things.

2. How nice of you to say we don't want socialized medicine here, i'm glad you're able to speak for the 47 million americans, who i'm pretty sure would be over-[Poor language removed]-joyed to actually have healthcare. my dad is a goverment employee so i'm on his plan (for the next couple years), but the clinton plan for universal healthcare would essentially expand this type of plan government employees are on to everyone. i think a better way to revise your statement would be "you don't need socialized medicine. you don't want socialized medicine here. simple really"

Good point there, mate. What I hear from the American posters is that people are not left to die due to lack of health care insurance; that is, if uninsured X is admitted to hospital with a life threatening condition, she will be treated. But what they omit to discuss is that X's condition might well have been treated earlier in time, before it was life threatening, if she had possessed health insurance. The fact that X could not pay for that insurance tells me that she is indeed a victim of the system in America. Plenty of people will die because they did not have access to medical help at the early stages of their diseases. In effect, people do die because of a lack of "socialised" medical care.

 

[toffeestillidie]

I have to go with Rob, trying to attach Communism to the concept of Socialised Healthcare is ridiculous. Thats what the Republicans would have you believe, as clearly they tried to paint Obama as a commy when you have zero concept of what socialism is. It was a slur designed to panic people into switching vote last minute and happily it failed.

There are some things which, in my opinion, should be the domain of your respective countries goverment - a social resposibility to look after the health of its people and lets be honest, the health care system in the States looks after those who are fortunate to have adequate healthcare either through their employer or through the necessary finances for their own private healthcare plan. People die because of the inadequacies in this system but hey you dont know them so its no importante.

Capitalism breeds a "[Poor language removed] you" attitude to fellow man.

VIVA LE REVOLUCION comrades.

chucks flare*

i think i detect seriousness in parts of that post. and there's no mention of pineapple and/or pizza. you dissapoint me

 

[TX Bill]

1. look at my post again, i clearly state routine care, not emergency care. routine care is preventative and can reduce the amount of proceducres people have to undergo later on, they're completely different things.

2. How nice of you to say we don't want socialized medicine here, i'm glad you're able to speak for the 47 million americans without healthcare, who i'm pretty sure would be over-[Poor language removed]-joyed to actually have healthcare. my dad is a goverment employee so i'm on his plan (for the next couple years), but the clinton plan for universal healthcare would essentially expand this type of plan government employees are on to everyone. i think a better way to revise your statement would be "you don't need socialized medicine. you don't want socialized medicine here. simple really"

the system is broken, which is why our health care costs are some of the highest in the world. also, because of america's high number of specialized doctors, we would likely still retain a flourishing private system if we went universal, you would just have to pay a tiny bit more in taxes for care that you wouldn't use. this drawback is more than worth it imo

Actually I'm speaking for the remaining 150 to 200 million Americans who DON'T want a socialized system here.

You are right. "I" do not want socialized medicine in this country.

Why you ask?

Because it won't be any better than what we have now. And we get to soak the taxpayers for it. Nice double dip there if you ask me. Again, I don't want more government, I want less.

I'm already paying Social Security tax and there's a likelihood that I won't see a dime of that when I hit retirement age. Why would I want to be taxed on additional programs when the ones we have right now are in trouble.

Why don't we take care of first things first. Get Social Security taken care of and then we can move on to our healthcare system.

Personally, I don't think the system is broken. Can it be improved? Sure. But it hasn't failed the American public as a whole.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Bruce, reading your post is like drinking an awesome coffee.

It wakes you up and slaps you in the tastiest possible way.

Great post.

Thanks McBain. You just get the feeling that no one is really thinking about old age. The future is out of sight out of mind. Yet by 2050 the number of over 85's is set to treble.

The public pension system is becoming bankrupt, yet many still fail to contribute to a private pension. Assuming the retirement age is maintained at its current level (the unions are ensuring any change is glacial) the average person could spend some 20 years + in retirement. The pension system was initially designed for people spending just a couple of years in retirement.

As I showed in my previous post, it seems people here are quite happy to let people top up to buy drugs. We also have countless examples of how competition forces efficiencies in the marketplace. It would seem logical then for the NHS at least to be broken up. Let the government provide a voucher that can then be spent wherever you want. If people want to 'shop' in this country, fine. If they want to head off to France or India or wherever. Cool. The patient gets choice, there's still a 'free' (god I hate that expression) element, and people can top up should they so wish.

Of course, that won't happen, at least in the short-term. The Tories under Michael Howard proposed a voucher scheme and were instantly branded evil. That such minds as Milton Friedman advocate just such schemes is ignored (Gordon Brown is taking his medicine to fight the crunch incidently - a Labour leader following the lines of a Libertarian economist, whatever next?).

Also incidently it is worth pointing out the raising money for the healthcare system is just one part of the picture. How you spend it is another again. Interesting article here in the Economist about waste in healthcare systems around the world. It advocates internal markets within the NHS as a means of increasing competition and pushing down costs. It's a step in the right direction but hopefully it won't stop there.

 

[chicoazul]

i think i detect seriousness in parts of that post. and there's no mention of pineapple and/or pizza. you dissapoint me

Check me going all politico, read around the big words and its a load of [Poor language removed] as usual though, just without Ye mars and stuff.

Bruce, youre one bad Tory you lid.