Whom do you hope the GOP nominates for 2012?

[The Gardener]

I think you have your rights and lefts mixed up. The government now operates our banks, our health-care system, and our automobile industry. That is much closer to socialism than fascism.

Who is getting the profits? Does the government, or the taxpayer, have any equity interests in these operations? No.

In socialism, government runs industries and "socializes" the profits, i.e. takes money from industry and uses it to manage the society. In our times, the government is taking money FROM the society, and giving it TO the heads of industry. That's a complete 180 difference. Yes there is government control, but it is not in the aim of controlling business. Rather, it is business that is controlling government.

Sorry, but that's not socialism... the correct term is more like oligarchy. If its socialism, then its socialism for the uber rich. Have any of us here attempted to go to the front door of the Federal Reserve and ask for a low interest loan? The uber rich are, and they're getting their money. If we attempted it, we'd be laughed at, if not arrested.

As for my mention of my fear of right wing fascism coming to America, it is not in the context of this administration. Don't get me wrong, I think Obama has proven himself to be just the latest puppet idiot in a long list of administrations headed by puppet idiots from both parties. As the real economy continues to deteriorate and collapse, as more people roll off of the end of their 99 weeks of unemployment assistance and start to face real poverty, and as more companies and jobs leave the US and head overseas for places with a more stable environment, lower wages, and less tax burden... and as the US starts to raise taxes, cut services, and dedicate more tax revenue towards servicing debt, I think there will be a backlash against Obama. There will be chaos, I forsee civil disturbances, and just as in past episodes in other nations that have gone through economic collapse, there will be a door opened for a home grown dictator to be welcomed into power to "restore order" and "make the tough decisions we need to make that our former democratic process was too log-jammed to accomplish".

We are already seeing ripples.... the recent activity in "militia movements", etc.

 

[Nene]

Also, England's health-care system is not better than ours, not even close. Not to mention we are 6x their population. You should ask some of your friends from the England, or even Canada how much they like a single payer system, Especially when they're down on a waiting list for life-saving surgery. Why do you think people are always coming over here for health-care? ...It's because our health-care is the best.

Edit: I found it. This is great!

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/1002 ... er_surgery

Well lets find out, shall we? Brits and Canadians, do you like your healthcare system?

 

[Nene]

Thats a hypothetical situation and is not the reality, so when you say, "government operates healthcare," it just isn't true.
So it "forces them to cover specific illnesses," um, would you like it if you get sick and discovered that your illness isn't covered? You like it that the insurance companies have the power to just not cover a certain illness? No one should have to go bankrupt for an illness, even if it is one that "no one has ever heard of."
As for the profit margins, why do you give a sh*t? Oh no, poor insurance companies, now the CEOs will only buy 3 BMWs this year instead of 5! :sobbing:
I for one wouldn't mind if the insurance companies went out of business. There is something sick about companies making billions off of the illnesses of others. When you have for profit health insurance, it gives them incentive to not cover costly illnesses. Lots of the other modernized countries (Germany, Taiwan, Japan, England) whom all have better healthcare than us btw, all have a single payer system, or non-profit health insurance companies.

The health-care bill isn't a hypothetical. As of now, the Government has control over our health-care system. And it will have complete control once the insurance companies run out of business. And that isn't hypothetical either. They can't afford the mandates that Washington is strangling them with. They will go under eventually.

Perhaps I wasn't specific enough. Here are some of the government mandates. The government will be forcing insurance companies and employers to provide some ridiculous policies that cover rare and exotic illnesses. You think employers should be forced to buy that? What do you think that will do to the unemployment rate? I guarantee that businesses won't eat the costs of the extra expenses for health insurance. They are going to get rid of employees.

Insurance companies can't refuse anyone with preexisting conditions. Are you kidding me? That goes against the very definition of insurance. Did I mention how small the profit margin is with insurance companies? They will unequivocally go out of business, forcing a government takeover.

And Parent's policies will be forced to cover children until the age of 26. Excuse me, you are not a child at age 26! You need to move out and get a frickin job! Plus, What is this going to do to the cost of the parents health-care costs?

I don't care about rich CEO's driving M3's. I care about businesses staying in the private sector. Besides, I would rather have a rich businessman than a rich politician running our economy.

So pre-existing conditions shouldn't be covered. So God forbid you or someone you love Timbo, gets laid off and loses their insurance, and then comes down with cancer. Now they can't get insurance and have to pay perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars out of pocket for their chemo and/or surgery. That fair? Or what if you or your mother came down with a rare and exotic disease? That shouldn't be covered? My father's insurance covers me now and I"m 25, whats wrong with that? I'm not a bum, I'm going to law school this fall with a scholarship but just don't have a job atm. So if I get sick before school starts this August, I should have to pay out of my pocket? Or I should just die because I can't afford it. f*** those insurance companies and their profits, I'm more concerned about regular Americans like myself and the people I love not dying because they can't afford health care, or going broke because they can't afford their medical bills. We have the about the 37th best health care system in the world, our health care FAR from the best. Why do you care so much if those business go under? Let them, they are pretty evil anyway. And no the government does not operate healthcare. They simply passed a law making all Americans buy healthcare. In socialism all doctors and hospital employees would be the governments payroll, we don't have that do we? Stop spreading lies talking about our socialists system that doesn't exists.

 

[Bryan]

Also, England's health-care system is not better than ours, not even close. Not to mention we are 6x their population.

What does the fact that we are 6x their population have to do with anything?

You should ask some of your friends from the England, or even Canada how much they like a single payer system, Especially when they're down on a waiting list for life-saving surgery. Why do you think people are always coming over here for health-care? ...It's because our health-care is the best.

LOL! Yeah, it's the best if you're a filthy-rich man who can easily pay for it!

Timbo, you need to watch Michael Moore's BRILLIANT film Sicko. It presents a far more convincing argument for universal healthcare than what we can explain in just a few words. Go out and rent it and watch it immediately!

Edit: I found it. This is great!

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/1002 ... er_surgery

I'm not sure what THAT has to do with anything, either. Medical expertise for some specific medical problem could exist just about anywhere, whether it's in a purely capitalist system, or a more socialistic system. If you're a wealthy person, you're going to go anywhere you want for treatment, the cost be damned. Don't you think Bill Gates (for example) goes to the best possible doctors, without any regard to the fact that his gardeners, cooks, and chauffers don't get the same treatment?

 

[timbo]

Oh my goodness, I don't even know where to start.

So pre-existing conditions shouldn't be covered. So God forbid you or someone you love Timbo, gets laid off and loses their insurance, and then comes down with cancer. Now they can't get insurance and have to pay perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars out of pocket for their chemo and/or surgery. That fair?

It's not about what is fair. Life isn't fair. You keep using the term "insurance," but really what your talking about is NOT insurance. How would a company be able to survive if everyone with cancer was able to get a policy after they were diagnosed? You have such a skewed, idealistic view of health-care. It isn't insurance you're talking about, It's would be giving a large sum of money to someone so they could pay their medical bills. Where is the money coming from? How could ANY business (including the government) afford to do that. Think about it. It doesn't add up. I wish that everyone with cancer could afford the medical treatment that they needed, but the reality is that health-care is expensive, and no doctor wants to work for free (and they shouldn't have to)!

Or what if you or your mother came down with a rare and exotic disease? That shouldn't be covered? My father's insurance covers me now and I"m 25, whats wrong with that? I'm not a bum, I'm going to law school this fall with a scholarship but just don't have a job atm. So if I get sick before school starts this August, I should have to pay out of my pocket? Or I should just die because I can't afford it.

My mom has insurance so she would be fine. What's your point? Like I was saying, If an insurance company was forced to give her a policy, it wouldn't be insurance. It would be the government forcing a private business to give my mom a large sum of money to pay for her medical bills? How is that right?

The difference is that your parents insurance company is choosing to include you on the policy because you are in school. Which is much better than the government forcing them to insure you. Once again, you have a very unrealistic view of how health-care is run. It costs money, where is that money going to come from? Unfortunately, if you are uninsured, and you get very sick, you would have to pay for the services and procedures of the hospital that you went to. That's just the way life works! You have to pay for services that you receive. That's why we have health insurance in the first place!

f*ck those insurance companies and their profits, I'm more concerned about regular Americans like myself and the people I love not dying because they can't afford health care, or going broke because they can't afford their medical bills. We have the about the 37th best health care system in the world, our health care FAR from the best. Why do you care so much if those business go under? Let them, they are pretty evil anyway.

If insurance companies go under, you are left with a government run health-care system. Why are you assuming that politicians in Washington are less corrupt than CEO's? Nene, you will learn this as you get older. The government is WAY less productive and efficient than the private sector.

And no the government does not operate healthcare. They simply passed a law making all Americans buy healthcare. In socialism all doctors and hospital employees would be the governments payroll, we don't have that do we? Stop spreading lies talking about our socialists system that doesn't exists.

Not true! When you force private businesses to do things a certain way, you change the way that they function completely. The government controls the way health insurance companies operate by putting up ridiculous restrictions and mandates.

I didn't say that we are a socialist country. But you would be a fool if you said that we aren't heading in that direction. If the government drives insurance companies out of business, then they will have to step in and create a single-payer system. You would effectively be handing over 1/6th of the countries economy to Washington. By definition, that would be socialism.

 

[timbo]

What does the fact that we are 6x their population have to do with anything?

The same reason why socialism works in Denmark, but it could never work here. I hear a lot of quotes about how we have 47 million people without health insurance. We also have a big country with a lot of people in it, and a lot of lazy people at that. Not everybody deserves health-care. If you are a lazy bum that sits on the couch all day, you shouldn't be able to force other people to pay for your medical bills. Simple as that.

LOL! Yeah, it's the best if you're a filthy-rich man who can easily pay for it!

Timbo, you need to watch Michael Moore's BRILLIANT film Sicko. It presents a far more convincing argument for universal healthcare than what we can explain in just a few words. Go out and rent it and watch it immediately!

If you want to have a civilized debate. Please, don't try to bring Michael Moore into it. I watched sicko, with my friend who analyzes risk and probability for Regence. Michael Moore has good intentions, but he is misinformed, and idealistic. Everyone can't have health insurace, because not everybody works! Where's the money going to come from? Do you expect doctors and hospital employees to work for free? There is no argument for universal health-care when you have our health-care. We have far less problems in this country than Canada and the UK.

I'm not sure what THAT has to do with anything, either. Medical expertise for some specific medical problem could exist just about anywhere, whether it's in a purely capitalist system, or a more socialistic system. If you're a wealthy person, you're going to go anywhere you want for treatment, the cost be damned. Don't you think Bill Gates (for example) goes to the best possible doctors, without any regard to the fact that his gardeners, cooks, and chauffers don't get the same treatment?

It wasn't about expertise. It was about getting a procedure done that was unavailable in his own Province.

"Premier Danny Williams of Newfoundland and Labrador is undergoing heart surgery in the United States later this week because the treatment he is seeking was not available in his home province..."

It was an example of what happens on a daily basis in that country. People drive down to our hospitals from Canada to get procedures done in efforts to avoid long waiting lists!

 

[Hammy070]

I like going to the doctor here in the UK and the only subject of concern is my health, not my financial status.

Right to life......I think it's morally unquestionable, paying for it or not - everyone deserves healthcare.

What about the police force? Let us say my car was stolen. I call the police, they get a lead and investigate. This costs a ton of money. Who is this paid for by in America?

I imagine they don't request law enforcement insurance details before handling your crime. Are ones' possessions of more value to Americans than their health or lives? I imagine not.

 

[Hammy070]

It was an example of what happens on a daily basis in that country. People drive down to our hospitals from Canada to get procedures done in efforts to avoid long waiting lists!

Long waiting lists are better than 47 million people not even on a list.

Long waiting lists can be solved with better funding strategies, logistics, scientific developments etc.

Not being on a list is solved by universal healthcare...achieved with either 100% employment or national insurance.

I find it alarming that you say not everyone deserves healthcare.

China has 1.2 billion people, India 1.3 billion....both have universal healthcare, China paying 80% of the medical bill for each patient. Indias' Government hospitals completely paid for by the tax payer, including prescriptions.

The quality of healthcare in both countries is improving rapidly, many already have world class examples exceeding Western nations.

Its' the culture in America...consumers who just happen to be in human form.

I'm in Scotland...all of it is paid for...the only thing we pay for is the processing of prescriptions for medicine, currently £3...or $5. Even this, will be phased out by 2011.

 

[timbo]

Long waiting lists are better than 47 million people not even on a list.

You wouldn't be saying that if you needed open-heart surgery.

That 47 million is a very deceiving number. A very large portion of them are illegal immigrants who don't even pay taxes.

Long waiting lists can be solved with better funding strategies, logistics, scientific developments etc.

Then why are so many people coming to our country for procedures that aren't available in their own countries?

Not being on a list is solved by universal healthcare...achieved with either 100% employment or national insurance.

"Not being on a list" is solved by buying health insurance. We don't need universal health-care.

I find it alarming that you say not everyone deserves healthcare.

Well, let's put this in perspective. There are well over 6 billion people in the world. How many of them do you think have health insurance? In a perfect world, everyone deserves health-care. But in reality, health-care is expensive. And you need qualified doctors and hospitals to meet those needs. Do you think they are volunteers?

China has 1.2 billion people, India 1.3 billion....both have universal healthcare, China paying 80% of the medical bill for each patient. Indias' Government hospitals completely paid for by the tax payer, including prescriptions.

This literally is so stupid that it doesn't even deserve a response. Have you ever been to India? I have. Don't even pretend like their health-care compares to either of our corresponding countries.

The quality of healthcare in both countries is improving rapidly, many already have world class examples exceeding Western nations.

No! they have many unqualified doctors who perform procedures in unsanitary environments! Not even close to what would be allowed in western countries. You can't even compare the quality of health-care with either of ours.

 

[Nene]

Oh my goodness, I don't even know where to start.

So pre-existing conditions shouldn't be covered. So God forbid you or someone you love Timbo, gets laid off and loses their insurance, and then comes down with cancer. Now they can't get insurance and have to pay perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars out of pocket for their chemo and/or surgery. That fair?

It's not about what is fair. Life isn't fair. You keep using the term "insurance," but really what your talking about is NOT insurance. How would a company be able to survive if everyone with cancer was able to get a policy after they were diagnosed? You have such a skewed, idealistic view of health-care. It isn't insurance you're talking about, It's would be giving a large sum of money to someone so they could pay their medical bills. Where is the money coming from? How could ANY business (including the government) afford to do that. Think about it. It doesn't add up. I wish that everyone with cancer could afford the medical treatment that they needed, but the reality is that health-care is expensive, and no doctor wants to work for free (and they shouldn't have to)!

Or what if you or your mother came down with a rare and exotic disease? That shouldn't be covered? My father's insurance covers me now and I"m 25, whats wrong with that? I'm not a bum, I'm going to law school this fall with a scholarship but just don't have a job atm. So if I get sick before school starts this August, I should have to pay out of my pocket? Or I should just die because I can't afford it.

My mom has insurance so she would be fine. What's your point? Like I was saying, If an insurance company was forced to give her a policy, it wouldn't be insurance. It would be the government forcing a private business to give my mom a large sum of money to pay for her medical bills? How is that right?

The difference is that your parents insurance company is choosing to include you on the policy because you are in school. Which is much better than the government forcing them to insure you. Once again, you have a very unrealistic view of how health-care is run. It costs money, where is that money going to come from? Unfortunately, if you are uninsured, and you get very sick, you would have to pay for the services and procedures of the hospital that you went to. That's just the way life works! You have to pay for services that you receive. That's why we have health insurance in the first place!

f*ck those insurance companies and their profits, I'm more concerned about regular Americans like myself and the people I love not dying because they can't afford health care, or going broke because they can't afford their medical bills. We have the about the 37th best health care system in the world, our health care FAR from the best. Why do you care so much if those business go under? Let them, they are pretty evil anyway.

If insurance companies go under, you are left with a government run health-care system. Why are you assuming that politicians in Washington are less corrupt than CEO's? Nene, you will learn this as you get older. The government is WAY less productive and efficient than the private sector.

And no the government does not operate healthcare. They simply passed a law making all Americans buy healthcare. In socialism all doctors and hospital employees would be the governments payroll, we don't have that do we? Stop spreading lies talking about our socialists system that doesn't exists.

Not true! When you force private businesses to do things a certain way, you change the way that they function completely. The government controls the way health insurance companies operate by putting up ridiculous restrictions and mandates.

I didn't say that we are a socialist country. But you would be a fool if you said that we aren't heading in that direction. If the government drives insurance companies out of business, then they will have to step in and create a single-payer system. You would effectively be handing over 1/6th of the countries economy to Washington. By definition, that would be socialism.

I think we just have a difference of perspective here. You are looking at it from the perspective of the insurance companies. First of all I think the fact that everyone is being forced to buy private insurance will ensure those companies a lot of business and offset any losses they might suffer due to having to cover pre-existing conditions. If what you predict is true and the insurance companies have to go out of business, I won't mind. I think that if the government has to step in to keep Americans insured and ensure medical care for all, then so be it. I don't think it would be as bad as you make it out to be at all. No one who has medicare seems to be complaining, and doctors don't seem to mind medicare either. We could easily afford it if we didn't spend ridiculous amounts of money on the wars and our defense budget. Other countries have shown we can have a much better system than the one we had and the one we will have. They aren't perfect, but it ensures the citizens healthcare without going broke, and I wouldn't mind seeing my tax dollars go to that.

 

[timbo]

I like going to the doctor here in the UK and the only subject of concern is my health, not my financial status.

In perspective, going to see a doctor is relatively unimportant in the grand-scheme of things. Major procedures - life saving or otherwise is the most important thing to look at. Going to the doctor is easy in both of our countries.

Right to life......I think it's morally unquestionable, paying for it or not - everyone deserves healthcare.

Everyone deserves health-care, in a perfect world. But this world is far from perfect. I bet there's some people in Africa who think that they deserve health-care too? Or did you mean... Everyone in the UK deserves health-care?

What about the police force? Let us say my car was stolen. I call the police, they get a lead and investigate. This costs a ton of money. Who is this paid for by in America?

Comparing health-care and law enforcement is like comparing apples and oranges. First off, the sheer magnitude of the health-care industry makes them completely incomparable. It equates to 1/6th of my countries economy. Law-enforcent isn't even close.

 

[timbo]

I think we just have a difference of perspective here. You are looking at it from the perspective of the insurance companies.

I don't really care about insurance companies. I simply think it's the best way to do health-care. The fact is, health-care wouldn't be so expensive if the government would back out completely. This country has proven that capitalism works. It's when the government butts their noses in with stipulations and mandates! That's when prices go up! They created the problem in the first place! Now they're trying to fix it with more government!

First of all I think the fact that everyone is being forced to buy private insurance will ensure those companies a lot of business and offset any losses they might suffer due to having to cover pre-existing conditions.

Pre-existing conditions alone will drive them out of business. Insurance companies will basically be handing people large sums of money to pay their medical bills!

If what you predict is true and the insurance companies have to go out of business, I won't mind. I think that if the government has to step in to keep Americans insured and ensure medical care for all, then so be it. I don't think it would be as bad as you make it out to be at all.

The government doesn't have any money to do that! Everybody can't have health-care, and maintain the quality that we see today! Unfortunately, there are lazy people in this country who don't deserve it. Health-care is never free. Hospitals are expensive to run, and doctors make salaries. It's just the way it is.

We could easily afford it if we didn't spend ridiculous amounts of money on the wars and our defense budget.

I agree with you on that one! Good luck with that fight...

Other countries have shown we can have a much better system than the one we had and the one we will have. They aren't perfect, but it ensures the citizens healthcare without going broke, and I wouldn't mind seeing my tax dollars go to that.

I feel like you don't really understand what the health-care is like in other countries. Currently, in America, doctors are educated to the highest standard in the world. We have the best hospitals in the world. We have no waiting lists for important, life-saving procedures. And if you buy health-insurance, most can afford to pay for expensive medical bills.

 

[Nene]

I think we just have a difference of perspective here. You are looking at it from the perspective of the insurance companies.

I don't really care about insurance companies. I simply think it's the best way to do health-care. The fact is, health-care wouldn't be so expensive if the government would back out completely. This country has proven that capitalism works. It's when the government butts their noses in with stipulations and mandates! That's when prices go up! They created the problem in the first place! Now they're trying to fix it with more government!

First of all I think the fact that everyone is being forced to buy private insurance will ensure those companies a lot of business and offset any losses they might suffer due to having to cover pre-existing conditions.

Pre-existing conditions alone will drive them out of business. Insurance companies will basically be handing people large sums of money to pay their medical bills!

If what you predict is true and the insurance companies have to go out of business, I won't mind. I think that if the government has to step in to keep Americans insured and ensure medical care for all, then so be it. I don't think it would be as bad as you make it out to be at all.

The government doesn't have any money to do that! Everybody can't have health-care, and maintain the quality that we see today! Unfortunately, there are lazy people in this country who don't deserve it. Health-care is never free. Hospitals are expensive to run, and doctors make salaries. It's just the way it is.

We could easily afford it if we didn't spend ridiculous amounts of money on the wars and our defense budget.

I agree with you on that one! Good luck with that fight...

Other countries have shown we can have a much better system than the one we had and the one we will have. They aren't perfect, but it ensures the citizens healthcare without going broke, and I wouldn't mind seeing my tax dollars go to that.

I feel like you don't really understand what the health-care is like in other countries. Currently, in America, doctors are educated to the highest standard in the world. We have the best hospitals in the world. We have no waiting lists for important, life-saving procedures. And if you buy health-insurance, most can afford to pay for expensive medical bills.

I disagree on almost every point so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Bryan]

What does the fact that we are 6x their population have to do with anything?

The same reason why socialism works in Denmark, but it could never work here.

I still don't understand what you're trying to say. Please be specific. (By the way, I'm glad you ADMIT that socialism works in Denmark! )

I hear a lot of quotes about how we have 47 million people without health insurance. We also have a big country with a lot of people in it, and a lot of lazy people at that. Not everybody deserves health-care. If you are a lazy bum that sits on the couch all day, you shouldn't be able to force other people to pay for your medical bills. Simple as that.

Do you think there aren't any lazy people in the UK or France, or any of the numerous other countries of the world that have universal healthcare? How do THEY manage to get along just fine, and still provide for all those lazy people?

Timbo, you need to watch Michael Moore's BRILLIANT film Sicko. It presents a far more convincing argument for universal healthcare than what we can explain in just a few words. Go out and rent it and watch it immediately!

If you want to have a civilized debate. Please, don't try to bring Michael Moore into it. I watched sicko, with my friend who analyzes risk and probability for Regence. Michael Moore has good intentions, but he is misinformed, and idealistic.

Really? Then explain to us all exactly how Michael Moore is supposedly "misinformed". BE SPECIFIC.

Everyone can't have health insurace, because not everybody works! Where's the money going to come from?

Where does it come from in Canada, the UK, France, and all those other countries? Where does it come from in CUBA, for God's sake?

Why can all those other countries figure out how to make universal healthcare work, but _we_ can't figure out how to do it?? Hmmm? uke:

There is no argument for universal health-care when you have our health-care. We have far less problems in this country than Canada and the UK.

ROTFLMAO!! Timbo, did you REALLY see Sicko, or did you just make that up about seeing it? Be honest, now!

I'm not sure what THAT has to do with anything, either. Medical expertise for some specific medical problem could exist just about anywhere, whether it's in a purely capitalist system, or a more socialistic system. If you're a wealthy person, you're going to go anywhere you want for treatment, the cost be damned. Don't you think Bill Gates (for example) goes to the best possible doctors, without any regard to the fact that his gardeners, cooks, and chauffers don't get the same treatment?

It wasn't about expertise. It was about getting a procedure done that was unavailable in his own Province.

"Premier Danny Williams of Newfoundland and Labrador is undergoing heart surgery in the United States later this week because the treatment he is seeking was not available in his home province..."

I'm still not sure what your point is! Do you really think that the type of social system you live under (purely capitalistic, or purely socialistic) determines the degree of local medical expertise or availability? I'm going to give you a simple example of what I'm talking about, and that you'll hopefully understand: imagine a tiny 20-square-mile island in the middle of the Pacific, far away from the mainstream of civilization. The local villagers live in total serenity, sharing the available food with each other and helping each other build grass huts, according to the need of each individual (hint: that's SOCIALISM). They do have a very rudimentary medical service, based on the knowledge and experience of a doctor who retired and came to live on the island from Hawaii a long time ago.

Question: does this tiny island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean perform heart transplants? Of course not! And it's not because they have a socialistic society on the island, it's because they don't have the medical technology (or much of ANY kind of technology) to do that. Politics doesn't have a goddamned thing to do with it! And that's also why Danny Williams came to the US to get his heart procedure done: it simply wasn't available in Newfoundland.

Here is perhaps an even better example of my point: I personally grew up in a small town in southwest Missouri. Even though it has a small hospital there, what do you think would happen if I were still living there, and had to have a heart transplant? Would I have the heart transplant done right there in that small town of 7,000 people, or would I be more likely to be flown to the vast Medical Center here in Houston, Texas for that? Is that because the small town in Missouri is more socialistic than it is in Houston?

People drive down to our hospitals from Canada to get procedures done in efforts to avoid long waiting lists!

Really? What about all those Canadians that MIchael Moore interviewed in Sicko who said that their waiting times in Canadian hospitals and emergency rooms were quite modest?

 

[The Gardener]

Why can all those other countries figure out how to make universal healthcare work, but _we_ can't figure out how to do it?? Hmmm?

The reason why such a program works in Denmark or Canada but won't work here is because our government is corrupt, grossly inefficient, utterly incompetent, and broke.

In Denmark, for instance, you can pay the government a tax for a service, and reasonably expect to receive the promised service.

In the US, the tax will be collected, but the money is squandered on wars, diverted to the parasitic financial cabal, and/or spent on crony-driven pork.

In Denmark, for instance, if there is some sort of natural disaster the government would probably mount an efficient response. In the US, we get Katrina.

Sorry, but I don't want MY health care being handled by the same people who handled Katrina, or who bungled Iraq, or who man the security checkpoints (with the LONG lines) at the airport, or who managed a central bank that created the financial disaster we are in, or who can't manage immigration inflows at our border. No. Thank. You.

The government already runs a small socialized health care program... the Veterans Administration health care system... and its an utter disaster. Every vet I know complains to high heaven about it, how they are being denied medications, being denied counseling and treatment for PTSD, and how the conditions at the hospitals look like something out of a 1970s time warp.

 

[joseph49853]

I know I am a cynic, but I have a strong feeling that right wing populist fascism will raise its head here in the States.

I think you have your rights and lefts mixed up. The government now operates our banks, our health-care system, and our automobile industry. That is much closer to socialism than fascism. Are you predicting a 180 degree turn in the next few years?

I'm personally an independent sick of being caught in the middle of radical pendulum rule. Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, they are all opposite wings of the same diseased bird. They simply play both sides off of one another. We just have a new confidence man in the White House.

NAFTA/GATT, media ownership rules changes favoring monopolies, repeal of laws comprising Glass Steagall, nation building, continual usurping of states' rights by the federal govt -- just for starters. Who is the prime audience of this stuff?

Or how about these as examples of a further erosion of US freedoms and liberties under the current Adminstration?

Obama signs Patriot Act extension without reforms
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... triot-act/

U.S. groups slam anti-piracy accord's draft text
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04523.html

 

[Nene]

I know I am a cynic, but I have a strong feeling that right wing populist fascism will raise its head here in the States.

I think you have your rights and lefts mixed up. The government now operates our banks, our health-care system, and our automobile industry. That is much closer to socialism than fascism. Are you predicting a 180 degree turn in the next few years?

I'm personally an independent sick of being caught in the middle of radical pendulum rule. Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, they are all opposite wings of the same diseased bird. They simply play both sides off of one another. We just have a new confidence man in the White House.

NAFTA/GATT, media ownership rules changes favoring monopolies, repeal of laws comprising Glass Steagall, nation building, continual usurping of states' rights by the federal govt -- just for starters. Who is the prime audience of this stuff?

Or how about these as examples of a further erosion of US freedoms and liberties under the current Adminstration?

Obama signs Patriot Act extension without reforms
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... triot-act/

U.S. groups slam anti-piracy accord's draft text
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04523.html

I've seen a lot of these types of comment on youtube lately. People like to come and say they are non-partisan, and then in same breath criticize Obama policies as impinging upon our liberties. Often they'll have something positive to say about Ron Paul also. A lot of anger at the federal government right now and I wonder where this anger was from 2000-2008. Now the trend is to say you're "libertarian" and just anti-government in general. I mean sure Obama isn't perfect and I've got my beef with him as well, But where were all these anti-government people before? You know, when Bush was passing the Patriot Act, lying about intelligence to get us into illegal wars, spying on us illegally, not responding to Katrina, giving ridiculous tax breaks to the rich and passing medicare part D. I didn't hear cries of Socialism and Facism back then. Everything was fine and dandy, we had 100,000s of war protesters but now all of a sudden a few tea baggers protesting is like the biggest news ever.

 

[Nene]

Why can all those other countries figure out how to make universal healthcare work, but _we_ can't figure out how to do it?? Hmmm?

The reason why such a program works in Denmark or Canada but won't work here is because our government is corrupt, grossly inefficient, utterly incompetent, and broke.

In Denmark, for instance, you can pay the government a tax for a service, and reasonably expect to receive the promised service.

In the US, the tax will be collected, but the money is squandered on wars, diverted to the parasitic financial cabal, and/or spent on crony-driven pork.

In Denmark, for instance, if there is some sort of natural disaster the government would probably mount an efficient response. In the US, we get Katrina.

Sorry, but I don't want MY health care being handled by the same people who handled Katrina, or who bungled Iraq, or who man the security checkpoints (with the LONG lines) at the airport, or who managed a central bank that created the financial disaster we are in, or who can't manage immigration inflows at our border. No. Thank. You.

The government already runs a small socialized health care program... the Veterans Administration health care system... and its an utter disaster. Every vet I know complains to high heaven about it, how they are being denied medications, being denied counseling and treatment for PTSD, and how the conditions at the hospitals look like something out of a 1970s time warp.

Ever hear of medicare? Sure the government has it's problems and it can be corrupt and inefficient, that doesn't mean it shouldn't provide us with healthcare. Should we close the post office, the police dept., our libraries, our public schools, the FDA, the FCC, public run jails etc etc because they are corrupt and inefficient? You do realize problems also arise when you let the private sector just take care of everything right?
Private, for profit industries don't give a sh*t about people and only want to maximize profits. If our disasters were taken care of by some private company, they would've let everyone in Katrina die if it wasn't profitable to save them.

 

[joseph49853]

Republicans and democrats over the last three decades never discriminated when raiding/robbing social programs like Medicare and SS... it paid for bailouts like the S&L under Bush Sr., military under Reagan, wars and programs under both Bushes and Obama, balancing the budget under Clinton etc.

Firstly, states vs federal rights is a tale as old as Madison and Jefferson. Nation building began under Teddy Roosevelt. FCC deregulation of media started under Reagan. NAFTA/GATT and the repeal of Glass Steagall under Clinton.

Glass Steagall's repeal (and the bailouts of S&L's) created today's too big to fail monopoly pacman banks. You know, the ones that socialize losses and privatize gains? NAFTA devalued the price of American labor cementing our consumption society. That's probably where the tea party movement truly started, under Ross Perot.

Independent means freedom and mobility of thought without any party affiliation. Think George Washington. No major political party currently represents that.

 

[Nene]

Republicans and democrats over the last three decades never discriminated when raiding/robbing social programs like Medicare and SS... it paid for bailouts like the S&L under Bush Sr., military under Reagan, wars and programs under both Bushes and Obama, balancing the budget under Clinton etc.

Firstly, states vs federal rights is a tale as old as Madison and Jefferson. Nation building began under Teddy Roosevelt. FCC deregulation of media started under Reagan. NAFTA/GATT and the repeal of Glass Steagall under Clinton.

Glass Steagall's repeal (and the bailouts of S&L's) created today's too big to fail monopoly pacman banks. You know, the ones that socialize losses and privatize gains? NAFTA devalued the price of American labor cementing our consumption society. That's probably where the tea party movement truly started, under Ross Perot.

Independent means freedom and mobility of thought without any party affiliation. Think George Washington. No major political party currently represents that.

You sound like a crazy person with that rant.