American Health care reform protests

[somone uk]

why don't you consider a run for office Gardener? why the f not?

Because neither of the political parties would help raise funds for me.

The choice is either to serve in office as a lackey to the elites, and forget or ignore my personal principles... or try to serve in accordance with my principles, in which case I'd either never pass through the party vetting and not get money to finance a campaign, or, if I somehow did make it into office, they'e either discredit me or kill me.

Ron Paul got in somehow.....


Surely there must be a base of anti-establishment voters in California screaming for an outsider?

America needs proportional representation go make it worth while

 

[Optimistic]

Oddly the indigenous British don't seem thrilled about having their land become inexorably multi-cultural. The fact that 24% of babies born in 2008 were to mothers who themselves were born overseas (55% in London), doesn't make me think "ooh, how wonderfully open we are as a country". It makes me think "ooh, not long until non-indigenous births out-strip indigenous ones". Then the English will be well on their way to becoming just another minority in their own land.

That's because most of the foreigners in the UK are working age, which also happens to be the fertile times of a woman. It doesn't necessarily mean they settle in the UK for a long time. The UK benefits from them, in a sense that they pay taxes and then fukc off.

Yes, it's true that a lot don't necessarily settle in the UK for a long time, but there are also a lot that don't pay taxes and then fukc off before the taxman catches up with them.

Think the self-employed who avoid registering and then disappear back to their own country where they can never be detected (Bulgarian and Romanian citizens are only allowed to work in the UK on a self-employed basis at the moment). Think the lapdancing girls who earn £150 000 plus a year and go back to their country.

This is syponing off wealth that ought to remain in the UK.

 

[oni]

But Waynetta slob is no good at lapdancing...................................... :whistle:

 

[oni]

Oddly the indigenous British don't seem thrilled about having their land become inexorably multi-cultural. The fact that 24% of babies born in 2008 were to mothers who themselves were born overseas (55% in London), doesn't make me think "ooh, how wonderfully open we are as a country". It makes me think "ooh, not long until non-indigenous births out-strip indigenous ones". Then the English will be well on their way to becoming just another minority in their own land.

That's because most of the foreigners in the UK are working age, which also happens to be the fertile times of a woman. It doesn't necessarily mean they settle in the UK for a long time. The UK benefits from them, in a sense that they pay taxes and then fukc off.

Yes, it's true that a lot don't necessarily settle in the UK for a long time, but there are also a lot that don't pay taxes and then fukc off before the taxman catches up with them.

Think the self-employed who avoid registering and then disappear back to their own country where they can never be detected (Bulgarian and Romanian citizens are only allowed to work in the UK on a self-employed basis at the moment). Think the lapdancing girls who earn £150 000 plus a year and go back to their country.

This is syponing off wealth that ought to remain in the UK.

If they do go home after having children, which I think you will find most don't!

I really don't see how they could have covered the cost of the "free hospital" usage to have said children with the taxes that they have paid?

Plus all the other things like family tax credits, maternity leave and so on............. :whistle:

 

[Optimistic]

Rob a bank?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookou ... re-in-jail

What a way to have to get hospital treatment !

 

[Old Baldy]

And which country creates new medical technology fastest?

Which country is the fattest and unhealthiest and relies on medical technologies it otherwise wouldn't need if it wasn't so fat and unhealthy.

Hey Aussie!

Your quote above made it to a site (dumba** Old Baldy didn't save the link) and your response was in the running for the "dumbest libtard quote of the milllenia".

Thought you'd like to know you are famous at other sites.

No, I did not say anything about you and that I knew who you were.

And, like I said, dumba** Old Baldy lost the da** link!!

I was so tempted to give a link to this section of this site for further libtard mania, but I have too many good memories of this site to cause a sh**storm over differing political views.

But, anyways, you are famous!!

ETA: It was a link from a gunsite I go to for technical answers and discussion and in the misc. section I saw this "make fun of libtards" topic.

The format was something like the one I linked below, but like an IDIOT, I forgot to copy the link and can't find it now!!

But here's an example: http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/ ... al-quotes/

Yes, we rabid conservatives make fun of you guys also.

Oh, MY GOD, do we make fun of libtards.

 

[Bryan]

Yes, we rabid conservatives make fun of you guys also.

Oh, MY GOD, do we make fun of libtards.

You should watch Bill Maher's show "Real Time with Bill Maher" every Friday night on HBO. He's smart as hell, and he and his liberal guests are excellent at presenting the liberal view to the rest of the country. I'm sure you'll enjoy it tremendously!

By the way: where you been, Old Baldy?

 

[Nene]

http://moneywatch.bnet.com/saving-money ... broke/290/[/url]

"Medicare Fraud Rampant In South Florida"
http://www.theledger.com/article/200808 ... /808170392

"FBI reports to Congress: widespread Medicare corruption found."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10297849

"Medicare ‘Rip-Off’ Hits Elderly"
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=home

I could post a million links showing how horrible private insurance is...

Sure... But at least with private insurance you have recourse. And you have choices.

If there is corruption or flawed service with a private insurance provider, you can sue them. And as a result, people get compensated, and the corrupt or incompetent people get fired.

On the other hand, with the Federal government, due to sovereign immunity lawsuits can and are routinely tossed out of court. Government workers don't get fired. And you don't get compensation, you get ripped off.

Add to this the fact that corruption, graft, and incompetence are firmly embedded in the government, and you get what I think would be a mess. And I'm not just saying this as a debating talking point, I've posted some solid citations to back what I believe are very reasonable grounds to have a great deal of skepticism about this.

People in the US who do have health insurance, and haven't been screwed by having a pre-existing condition or screwed by having a substandard policy, generally get some of the best health care in the world. I agree that some of these flaws need to be addressed but nationalizing it is not something I think would be a good idea.

Let me take a step back, and give a more "high altitude" view of my position. I don't necessarily disagree with universal health care, from a purely philosophical standpoint. Sure, I think it would be a great thing to have, and would support it, from a philosophical perspective.

The disagreement I have with it is not the philosophy, it is the execution of the program. I think we need to take a long, hard, and honest look about how well or how poorly the US government executes its actions.

Frankly, it's dismal. Let's review:
1) Where the government DOES currently provide health care, their record is abominably bad.
2) In other sectors where the Federal government is tasked to provide social services, such as airport security, domestic disaster response, Medicare, Social Security, the IRS, the SEC, the Treasury department, Border Control, etc. the results have clearly been substandard, and characterized by long waits for service, long lines, incompentence, failure, and gross financial mismanagement.
3) The government has a long record of de-prioritizing social services. They have a record of instituting a tax on us to fund specific social service goals, only to have those funds then re-prioritized for other, non-social services related priorities. The end result has been decades of hollowing out and de-funding of Medicare, Social Security, etc. We have paid taxes to fund these activities, and the money is all gone, meaning the government ends up breaking the promises and, in the end, giving us sub-standard service.

It's not that I don't like national health care. I do. It's that I don't trust THIS government, IN PARTICULAR, to do it. Let's face the facts... they won't. They'll take the money and spend it on other things. Thinking that this behavior will change is wishful thinking, and is not supported in any sense of historical reality.

In short, I think those who believe that the US government could oversee any sort of a national health care scheme are in fantasyland.

i mean i think America should of just copied and pasted what the uk has

If we did, it would be broke in two years, tops. Your government is just better, more efficient, and less corrupt than ours is. They would bleed this dry faster than you could say "Mississippi".

For another example of this, one need only look at our "national rail system", Amtrak. It's a long standing joke.[/quote:19q6yt7v]


Gardener, I know this is old but I dont' think I ever saw this so let me reply here.

A. "Sure... But at least with private insurance you have recourse. And you have choices.
If there is corruption or flawed service with a private insurance provider, you can sue them. And as a result, people get compensated, and the corrupt or incompetent people get fired."

Well with the public option, you would also have a recourse. If you don't like government insurance you could go buy private insurance. Also, since when can't you sue the government? I haven't researched extensively on government immunity in the medicare context. However, generally, SOME government entities are immune to SOME types of suits. You can't just make a blanket statement and say the govenrment insurance would be immune from suit without showing me some citations.

B. "People in the US who do have health insurance, and haven't been screwed by having a pre-existing condition or screwed by having a substandard policy, generally get some of the best health care in the world. I agree that some of these flaws need to be addressed but nationalizing it is not something I think would be a good idea."

You do realize the people who do get screwed with bad policies or pre-existing conditions actually go bankrupt or even die from lack of healthcare? This is not some minor problem. You brush it off, like oh that .5% of people who are unlucky. This is a pervasive problem. The #1 cause of bankruptcy in this country is healthcare. I agree that if you do have good insurance, you do get great healthcare, but you can't disregard or undermine the huge number of people who are getting sub par coverage and are suffering, dying, and going broke as a result.

C. As to your last points.
1. "Where the government DOES currently provide health care, their record is abominably bad"

Is that why seniors are up in arms if you talk about taking away their medicare? Government isn't perfect, but medicare has long been necessary for seniors to have a good standard of living. Poverty rates for seniors are low, make them go on private insurance and I guarantee you, that rate will sky rocket.

2. "In other sectors where the Federal government is tasked to provide social services, such as airport security, domestic disaster response, Medicare, Social Security, the IRS, the SEC, the Treasury department, Border Control, etc. the results have clearly been substandard, and characterized by long waits for service, long lines, incompentence, failure, and gross financial mismanagement."

SS is extremely successful and has been running at a surplus. It's broke now because of tax cuts for the rich, illegal wars, and medicare part D. This isn't SS's fault. Other departments and agencies you mentioned have varyling levels of success and failure. Is it better to not have them? No SEC? So bankers can run a muck with insider trading? Nothign is perfect and that includes government. That doesn't mean the best alternative is to dissolve these agencies, but to work on improving them. I'd love to see how your air quality would be out there in California wiht no EPA.

3. "The government has a long record of de-prioritizing social services. They have a record of instituting a tax on us to fund specific social service goals, only to have those funds then re-prioritized for other, non-social services related priorities. The end result has been decades of hollowing out and de-funding of Medicare, Social Security, etc. We have paid taxes to fund these activities, and the money is all gone, meaning the government ends up breaking the promises and, in the end, giving us sub-standard service."

This is a great point and I agree. This is what is happening right now. As I mentioned before, SS was running at a surplus, however, the government used that money for wars and tax cuts. Now they are trying to cut SS as a result. However, I don't think the answer means we shouldn't have SS. The answer is holding these *** holes accountable. Voting out the people who made these decisions. Pressuring our representatives to continue funding these social services and to keep them high on the list of priorities.

 

[Cassin]

Which country is the fattest and unhealthiest and relies on medical technologies it otherwise wouldn't need if it wasn't so fat and unhealthy.

Hey Aussie!

Your quote above made it to a site (dumba** Old Baldy didn't save the link) and your response was in the running for the "dumbest libtard quote of the milllenia".

Thought you'd like to know you are famous at other sites.

No, I did not say anything about you and that I knew who you were.

And, like I said, dumba** Old Baldy lost the da** link!!

I was so tempted to give a link to this section of this site for further libtard mania, but I have too many good memories of this site to cause a sh**storm over differing political views.

But, anyways, you are famous!!

ETA: It was a link from a gunsite I go to for technical answers and discussion and in the misc. section I saw this "make fun of libtards" topic.

The format was something like the one I linked below, but like an IDIOT, I forgot to copy the link and can't find it now!!

But here's an example: http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/ ... al-quotes/

Yes, we rabid conservatives make fun of you guys also.

Oh, MY GOD, do we make fun of libtards.

So much hatred in the two posts within that quote...both of you should stay away from political commentary. It doesn't seem to make you emotionally happy.

 

[Old Baldy]

Just messin' with him Cassin.

Aussie's a good guy.......we just have different ways "to get there" if you get what I mean.

Lighten up!!

 

[Old Baldy]

Yes, we rabid conservatives make fun of you guys also.

Oh, MY GOD, do we make fun of libtards.

You should watch Bill Maher's show "Real Time with Bill Maher" every Friday night on HBO. He's smart as hell, and he and his liberal guests are excellent at presenting the liberal view to the rest of the country. I'm sure you'll enjoy it tremendously!

By the way: where you been, Old Baldy?

I'm doing good Bryan.......retired a couple of years ago and having a ball. (Golfing, gardening, going to the range, etc. In fact, I just got back from a two week vacation in Montana and North Dakota. Had to beat the heat!! )

How are things going with you?

ETA: Oh, the wife watches Mahar now and then. It is a funny show. Pretty good cuts and digs against rabid right wingers like me.

 

[Cassin]

Just messin' with him Cassin.

Aussie's a good guy.......we just have different ways "to get there" if you get what I mean.

Lighten up!!

Lighten up? My friend re-read your post.

Anyway.. good to see you!

 

[Old Baldy]

Cassin: I was messin' with him.

Aussie and I have always done this.