US presidential election...

Hi All,

**NON MULTIBOXING TOPIC**

As someone living outside the US (Australia), and having a passing interest in the upcoming US presidential election, all the international media coverage I have seen so far has only covered Obama vs Clinton for the Democratic nomination. In fact I had to go to good old Wikepedia to find out who the republican candidate was (John McCain).

Since most of you live in the US, I though I would ask - is it the same there? I.e. is John McCain getting any press coverage at all? Does the upcoming election look to be shaping up as a close one? What are your thoughts on the two cadidates (Obama & McCain)

Just curious...

Cheers,
Stealthy

It's a tricky topic, and heated, but as far as press coverage go, It's all about Obama and Hillary everywhere, that's just the natural drift that all media is going to fall into. I'm sure McCain doesn't mind, Hillary and Obama dragging out eachother's dirty laundry for 3 months while he raises money and campaigns in places no Republicans ever go to, has to be great for him. He gets the benefit of not having anyone attack him, while having both potential opponents ripped apart.

Personally my opinion on how close of a race it will be is simple, It won't be. I think McCain has already won, regardless of your political affiliation, there are not enough people nationwide that would vote for A) a woman, or B) a black man, in America. There are too many people that just won't do it, and since the vote is so split, a lot of voters Pro Hillary, or Pro Obama, might not even vote for the other if their candidate isn't in the race. Unless something major comes up soon, I don't see either Democrat pulling off a victory. Just my opinion.

May I suggest the off-topic forum in the most friendly way possible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Basilikos',index.php?page=Thread&postID=71959#pos t71959

May I suggest the off-topic forum in the most friendly way possible?

---

Done. :)

The media thrives on "interesting" subjects. Because there was little to no actual conflict on the republic party, it wasn't "interesting" enough to report about.

Meanwhile, the Clinton/Obama thing was a pretty neck-and-neck race for a while there, with strong opinions on both sides. That made it something interesting to report about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Elili',index.php?page=Thread&postID=71958#post719 58

Personally my opinion on how close of a race it will be is simple, It won't be. I think McCain has already won, regardless of your political affiliation, there are not enough people nationwide that would vote for A) a woman, or B) a black man, in America. There are too many people that just won't do it, and since the vote is so split, a lot of voters Pro Hillary, or Pro Obama, might not even vote for the other if their candidate isn't in the race. Unless something major comes up soon, I don't see either Democrat pulling off a victory. Just my opinion.

---

I actually believe the exact opposite of that statement. In my opinion, there is a lot of people out there who have had enoughh of the bad economics that the current presidential staff has so kindly created for us over the last 8 years. Personally I say put Bill C back in charge. He had the economy going strong and I believe that the American populace is ready for democratic party in the white house again. That being said, I know jack about politics and its all just my 2c

The reason there has been so much Obama vs. Hillary coverage is because the race for the Democratic nomination has been closer and lasted longer than any in modern history. Usually both major parties would have decided their candidate a couple of months ago. Also, both candidates would represent a historic first to receive the nomination of a major party, being a black man and a woman. Early on there was pretty even coverage between the two parties, but McCain certainly hasn't gotten the focus that the two Democrats have since he secured the Republican nomination. Now that Obama has secured the Democratic nomination, we should see a lot more even levels of coverage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Kissell13',index.php?page=Thread&postID=71966#pos t71966

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Elili',index.php?page=Thread&postID=71958#post719 58

Personally my opinion on how close of a race it will be is simple, It won't be. I think McCain has already won, regardless of your political affiliation, there are not enough people nationwide that would vote for A) a woman, or B) a black man, in America. There are too many people that just won't do it, and since the vote is so split, a lot of voters Pro Hillary, or Pro Obama, might not even vote for the other if their candidate isn't in the race. Unless something major comes up soon, I don't see either Democrat pulling off a victory. Just my opinion.

---

I actually believe the exact opposite of that statement. In my opinion, there is a lot of people out there who have had enough of the bad economics that the current presidential staff has so kindly created for us over the last 8 years.

---

I think that's very true. McCain doesn't stand a chance unless he can distance himself from Bush as much as possible. Not just on economic policies, but on international relations too. Still, it is far too early to call the race.

The reason you didn't know about John Mcain was that he kept his mouth shut and let Hillary and Obama have their little slap-fight these past few months.

What better way to make BOTH of the DEM candidates look bad than by keeping quiet and letting the two of them look like a couple of spoiled brats arguing with
each other over the SAME IDEALS in the SAME pARTY.

There's a couple of sayings I've heard.

1. The Democrats are doing a good enough job making each other look bad, WITHOUT the help of John McCain and the Republican party. (That why McCain has been quiet)
2. Democrats operate on the principle called a "Circular Firing Squad" (The firing squad stands in a circle around the opposing candidate and fires, and instead shoots each other)

Seriously, that's what's been going on here Hillary thinks she's entitled to be President because her Husband was President for a while,
(If that's the case, then Robin Givens should be Heavyweight Champion of the World because the was married to Mike Tyson, and Tony Blairs wife should be PM of England)

And all Obama says is "change change change" but never really says WHAT he'll change, it's kind of like eating a jpg of a sandwich. It looks good....but that's about it.

One thing that confused me when I was reading up on this in Wikipedia - The Democrats currently hold a mjority in congress, both in the senate, and the house of reps. Yet the president is a Republican, and has the power to veto any bills that come through congress.

How does any legislation get passed like this? I mean since the president is from the opposing party, wouldn't he just veto any bills the Democrats pass up trhough congress?

Cheers,
Stealthy

was catching up on some US election news the other day, and came across one of those /facepalm moments :pinch:

I tend to listen to both sides of the story.. well I say both sides.. Fox news vs every other news channel in the US :P

Can't remember the guy's name, but it was definitely a fox news presenter.. He was talking about the democrats and recapping on some debate they had had. He acctually tried to be diplomatic and say something seemingly pro democrat but came up with this: :pinch:

"What you have to realise is, the democrats may make history this year. This could be the first time ever, that we have either a woman president or a black president. Personally I think it's great. I dunno about you "....." (can't remember his co-presenters name), but I applaud the democrats putting two candidates from minority groups forward for candidacy."


Not even sure it even registered with anyone at fox tho, cos they didn't even try to correct him, or weren't at all taken aback! :pinch:

Congratulations ladies ur a 3,338,781,960 strong minority! or 151,912,323 in the US..

I despair sometimes :S


EDIT: back to the topic tho

I have to say I rly hope it's a democrat this time.. Not just because I'm liberal myself, but for the sake of you lot over there in the US. thing is over here, even your democrats sound conservative! :P (well ok, not quite, but nearly)
I get a lot of feedback from my brother (who lives in the states), and he's considered a democrat by most of his friends over there, but whenever I come to visit they have a wale of a time ^^ I must seem nearly communist to his friends :pinch: - don't think I made it any better by acctually wearing a CCCP T-shirt when I was talking to them ^^ (oh yeah.. and PS: don't wear that when ur going through immigration- the guy there was kind enough to say "So you might want to put a sweater on" - think had it been anyone else I would have faced deportation :S )

When did the word "Social" become a bad thing? I see countless selfless acts on some of your TV channels about people helping each other, simply because they have no money or no home or whatnot. But yet somehow, when it comes to politics, these same people vote for those that most damage the ones they are trying to help. I dunno maybe it's just my point of view but you guys could benefit from some left-ish policies.
Minimum wage (at an acceptable level), Free health care, free schooling/university (altho here in England they are moving away from that :S ) etc

Actually this applies to pretty much every country in the world, I'm just mentioning it as the elections is relevant in the US atm.

I've given up hope for anything good to come out of any Presidential candidate..

There's just no way 1 President can come in and fix everything that is wrong with US politics.
There are too many corrupt politicians, and the President always ends up as a scapegoat for our countrys problems.
And it makes me almost sick that every time I go to vote for a president, I feel I am voting for the lesser of two evils.

I'm not sure everyone understands the impact of the world's dwindling fuel reserves on the economy either (not just ours).
It's going to get worse before it gets better...and no matter who the next President is, they can't restock the world's oil supply. Our enconomy is going to suffer.

That being said...Does anyone know how much fuel we go through in a week with our troops overseas protecting us? I'm not against us being there, I am just really curious.
I'm sure a tank get's slighty worse gas millage than an SUV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Stealthy',index.php?page=Thread&postID=72000#post 72000

One thing that confused me when I was reading up on this in Wikipedia - The Democrats currently hold a mjority in congress, both in the senate, and the house of reps. Yet the president is a Republican, and has the power to veto any bills that come through congress.

How does any legislation get passed like this? I mean since the president is from the opposing party, wouldn't he just veto any bills the Democrats pass up trhough congress?

Cheers,
Stealthy

---

That would seem to be the case, but practical considerations make it work better than we would think. On one level, there is quid pro quo to consider-- if you're willing to compromise on an issue, you may get the same consideration in turn later on. Also, bills can be discussed and modified before they're voted on, which allows some objections to be addressed and make it more palatable for both sides. Many bills introduced by one party will have 'riders' attached that benefit what the other party wants, which is one of the ways they compromise (although it is also used to kill some legislation, by making the new bill unattractive to the party that introduced it). And contrary to common belief, lobbyists spread their dollars to both parties pretty liberally, which can help push legislation through that might otherwise be held up.

Democracy here works best when people take a practical approach to compromise and negotiation. It's not always pretty, but more effective than it would seem at first glance.

As for the question about coverage, yes, McCain got very little coverage compared to Clinton and Obama, but that is because he sewed up the nomination early on. Also, aside from the fact that Clinton and Obama still had to campaign against each other the novelty of a woman and a black candidate running (much less two in the same election year) also made for more news coverage. And they're both relatively new; McCain has made a few runs at the Presidency, so he is something of a known quantity. Now that the Democratic nominee is settled, we'll start to see more coverage that includes McCain, since the networks will be anxious to compare him with Obama and analyze them and the election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Stealthy',index.php?page=Thread&postID=72000#post 72000

One thing that confused me when I was reading up on this in Wikipedia - The Democrats currently hold a mjority in congress, both in the senate, and the house of reps. Yet the president is a Republican, and has the power to veto any bills that come through congress.

How does any legislation get passed like this? I mean since the president is from the opposing party, wouldn't he just veto any bills the Democrats pass up trhough congress?

Cheers,
Stealthy

---

It's also worth noting that with a large enough majority in Congress in favor of a bill, they can override the president's veto. It takes a 2/3 majority for that to happen though, which makes it somewhat rare. Bush has vetoed 9 bills (which is actually the lowest of the last 50 years), and 2 of those have been overridden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Vyndree',index.php?page=Thread&postID=71964#post7 1964

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Basilikos',index.php?page=Thread&postID=71959#pos t71959

May I suggest the off-topic forum in the most friendly way possible?

---

Done. :)

The media thrives on "interesting" subjects. Because there was little to no actual conflict on the republic party, it wasn't "interesting" enough to report about.

Meanwhile, the Clinton/Obama thing was a pretty neck-and-neck race for a while there, with strong opinions on both sides. That made it something interesting to report about.

---

I luv ya Vyndree but I have to disagree with you on this. Speaking as a conservative and one that watches the Republicans, it was a "shoot out at the O.K. Coral." IMHO McCain is only the candidate because he was the guy left standing after all the shots had been fired. Don't underestimate the power of media bias. Really, again IMHO it cost Clinton the nomination.
That said the thing that is interesting about this election is that on both sides,the anaylsts are saying that they will lose. The majority of Republicans aren't happy with McCain. At least 1/2 of the Democrats aren't happy with Obama. Further both of these candidates aren't doing well in the states that they, traditionally, have had to do well in. For example McCain didn't take the South. Obama lost New York, California, and Florida. So this is shaping up to be interesting if disappointing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Stealthy',index.php?page=Thread&postID=72000#post 72000

One thing that confused me when I was reading up on this in Wikipedia - The Democrats currently hold a mjority in congress, both in the senate, and the house of reps. Yet the president is a Republican, and has the power to veto any bills that come through congress.

How does any legislation get passed like this? I mean since the president is from the opposing party, wouldn't he just veto any bills the Democrats pass up trhough congress?

Cheers,
Stealthy

---

This is the way things were designed by the "founding fathers." They understood that, generally, federal government had the propensity to become self-aggrandizing and self-perpetuating, so to prevent undue haste in passing laws they set things up so that it required a 2/3 majority vote to override a presidential veto. Since we generally do not elect enough of a particular party to the legislature, it puts the president in a position to be a balance to congress passing laws too easily. This prevents "congressional momentum" as it were and usually keeps us from legislating stupid shit without someone being able to say, "Hey, wait just a damn minute." Do they always do that? No, but it's an option.

Regarding the general election status as it stands today, it is very much open for debate. The Democrat party forerunners (Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama) have only just this week gotten to the point where they had enough delegates pledged to vote for them in the primary election (where the parties choose their candidates to run in the general election) that we knew which one was going to be the Democrat candidate for president. This means that the "general" election campaign didn't really start until this week.

##### SCREED WARNING #####

As for the candidates specifically, you basically have the choice with the main two parties between blindfolded socialist dogma that isn't anything new and which has been proven a failure time and time again and a rickety conservative capitalism whose voter base has been seriously pissed on by the leaders who have been both A) far too accomodating of our media and B) far too afraid to stick to their conservative guns on policy. The interesting thing in all this is that you have a Democrat voter base who have been generally pissed off since Bubba left office and a Republican voter base who have become completely disgruntled with the Republican "leadership" that can't seem to decide whether they want to enact policies that piss off the mainstream media or their own voters. Two voting blocs that are pissed at Washington should make for some interesting fireworks over the next several months.

I have no idea how things will go yet, though I think McCain will end up the Republican candidate unless his health spontaneously combusts. Not that this would be a bad thing, IMO. Which means you're gonna have a lot of Republicans pulling levers in November for someone they really do not want to elect but feel they have to in order to prevent the complete destruction of the US economy via trillions of dollars in new health care and global warming (aka "nanny state") initiatives.

Then you'll have the Democrats pulling levers for whoever has a "D" next to their name because they feel they have to in order to prevent the Republicans from blocking legislation that will save the planet and millions of species that are at the brink of extinction due to oil company profits and tax cuts for the rich and Johnny deserves a lollipop too because he's a minority and can't fend for himself in this evil white-owned nation and omg did you see how Bush killed all the spotted owls in California to make room for his buddy oil-millionaire's new gameroom and America is too uppity and needs to be knocked down a peg and like dudes need healthcare too, brah.

During Obama’s speech in Pollclash The word "change" is just a word. Either candidate would constitute a change. For example we are all part in our families, yet we all do not have share the same beliefs nor are we identically same. McCain was a democrat not so long ago. Another great example is when we need someone with true experience due we reach out for someone whom we know nothing about or how they work? We should want the best experienced person to do the job.

I am looking forward to another Democrat President. Sometimes you have to wonder what it would have been like if Gore won instead of Bush. I think too many people forgot about the bs that got Bush elected.

[quote='Ughmahedhurtz',index.php?page=Thread&postID =72216#post72216]I have no idea how things will go yet, though I think McCain will end up the Republican candidate unless his health spontaneously combusts. Not that this would be a bad thing, IMO. Which means you're gonna have a lot of Republicans pulling levers in November for someone they really do not want to elect but feel they have to in order to prevent the complete destruction of the US economy via trillions of dollars in new health care and global warming (aka "nanny state") initiatives.

Then you'll have the Democrats pulling levers for whoever has a "D" next to their name because they feel they have to in order to prevent the Republicans from blocking legislation that will save the planet and millions of species that are at the brink of extinction due to oil company profits and tax cuts for the rich and Johnny deserves a lollipop too because he's a minority and can't fend for himself in this evil white-owned nation and omg did you see how Bush killed all the spotted owls in California to make room for his buddy oil-millionaire's new gameroom and America is too uppity and needs to be knocked down a peg and like dudes need healthcare too, brah.[/quote]

I dunno dude :S historically the US economy has always faired better under a democratic president.

[url='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms']National Debt[/url] - Jobs Created - Unemployment

Although I do agree with you to a certain extent. The Democrats are playing the green card too much IMO, and tbh that pisses me off quite a bit. I mean I understand the need for some policies regarding pollution and wildlife preservation, but when ppl talk about global warming :S. There is a much more credible correlation to global temperatures when referenced against sun spot activity
To clarify.. Anti pollution = good in general - anti global warming = urgh
To me it just seems like a waste of money trying to prove or disprove global warming, when logic suggests that money would be much better spent acctually reducing emissions, researching sustainable and renewable fuels etc not because it would reduce global warming, but because it would greatly improve and sustain peoples quality of life.

anyway, that aside for the mo, I don't see how the introduction of a healthcare system for everyone is a bad thing. Sure it may cost a lot of money, but in the long term, the economy will be generally more stable and grow at a much faster rate.
And it's not just down to the population being healthier and more able to work. It frees up disposable income that would otherwise be tied up in personal savings, encouraging consumer spending and thus further promotes growth. Or for those already in debt, it offers the chance to climb the employment market without having to worry about excessive costs to themselves or their families until they are able to pay etc.

I'm really sorry but I don't understand this general dislike of a publicly funded health care system. Is it purely monetarily disliked? but if only the richest people carry the cost, surely everyone else would love it.. no? or is there something else I haven't heard of, as I'm way over the other side of the Atlantic.

Quote:

---

During Obama’s speech in Pollclash The word "change" is just a word. Either candidate would constitute a change. For example we are all part in our families, yet we all do not have share the same beliefs nor are we identically same. McCain was a democrat not so long ago. Another great example is when we need someone with true experience due we reach out for someone whom we know nothing about or how they work? We should want the best experienced person to do the job.

---

I have to say, out of all the Republican candidates, I am sooo pleased it's McCain that's running the show. I dunno why ^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Ðeceased',index.php?page=Thread&postID=76338#post 76338

I have to say, out of all the Republican candidates, I am sooo pleased it's McCain that's running the show. I dunno why ^^

---

I'd definitely have to agree with that. But I know exactly why I agree. :P The other two that had a real chance at it were super religious types that would set forth ridiculous policies because "god told me to." The founders of this country clearly believed that religion had no place in politics, and for good reason. It is always unfortunate when politicians feel that they don't need to honor that.

I also have a great deal of respect for McCain's military service, even if I'm not sure I would always agree with his policies. I feel that he would always give very serious consideration to the consequences of military action, rather than thinking "we'll be greeted as liberators".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Stealthy',index.php?page=Thread&postID=71952#post 71952

Hi All,

**NON MULTIBOXING TOPIC**

As someone living outside the US (Australia), and having a passing interest in the upcoming US presidential election, all the international media coverage I have seen so far has only covered Obama vs Clinton for the Democratic nomination. In fact I had to go to good old Wikepedia to find out who the republican candidate was (John McCain).

Since most of you live in the US, I though I would ask - is it the same there? I.e. is John McCain getting any press coverage at all? Does the upcoming election look to be shaping up as a close one? What are your thoughts on the two cadidates (Obama & McCain)

Just curious...

Cheers,
Stealthy

---

Ah, well there's good reason for that. One, it was a first on both sides to have a neck-and-neck running for both the first woman and first black Democratic nominee. Second, McCain had the Republican nomination basically locked up back in March, so we all knew where that party was headed. But most importantly, major media in the USA is managed and reported heavily by Democrat voters. When Democrats such as Bernard Goldberg come forth to state they should be more objective in their reporting of all news involving liberal (more Democrat) and conservative (more Republican) issues, he was basically blackballed from major media networks. His books, "Bias" and "Arrogance" explain how even as a liberal himself, he was surrounded by around 80% liberal coworkers and management, most of them oblivious to the fact that they report the media with a liberal slant.

As for my thoughts on the candidates, they both are atrocious for the future of this country, and here's why..
They both are leaders who *depend* on the support of their party. Both parties, Democrats and Republicans, are bad news for the future of this country, and it's proven by their actions of the last 30 years. They do NOT act in the best interests of the majority of the nation. They spend more time trying to keep their current registered Democrat and Republican voters based on certain social issues, that while are important, are NOT as important as the vision of the "American Dream" to the 200 million working middle class of the country. Both Democrats and Republicans have sold out this vast majority of people to line their own pockets - that's why we see scandals constantly in Washington, and that's only the ones we hear about. I'm not talking about sex scandals - I'm talking about bad deals and immoral laws that don't reflect the benefit of the majority of the people in the nation.

One of the most honest, and no bullshit, men in major media is Lou Dobbs. Read his book, "War on the Middle Class," and you'll see how both parties have continually screwed the country. From shoddy trade deals like NAFTA to broken social services like Medicare & Medicaid. The country runs on big businesses slipping cash to politicians

As someone who sees how the government actually works on various levels in day-to-day interactions in military contract software engineering, I'm adamantly against more federal involvement in our lives with government-run programs. People complain about the financial cost of the Iraq War, but our *entire* defense budget (the war, paying soldiers, paying benefits to retired soldiers, running military bases all over the world, building new and maintaining vehicles, ships, and aircraft, and paying contractors for military training simulations) is less than the cost of a failing Medicare program by $20-40 billion. That's how big the healthcare problem is in this country. Government run healthcare continues to fail, and making it universal is only going to accelerate the problem. For this reason, there's no way I could vote for Obama, even though I think of him a likeable and apparantly honorable person. His party is part of the problem, and this aren't going to suddenly change. Healthcare needs a whole new reform through legislation, but not another government run agency of excessive waste of funds. Unfortunately, yet another election is going to come down to the choice of the lesser of two evils, because both parties basically suck the majority of the nation dry.

I'm sure people will come to defend their party, and I used to be one of those people, but if you objectively look at the facts and laws enacted by both parties for the last 30 years, you'll see an overriding problem. The very poor continue to be poor even though they're promised a greater living by Democrats. The very rich continue to get richer by decisions from BOTH parties, even though Republicans tend to openly accept credit. The tax burden relative to disposable income continues to shift more heavily on families with incomes between $20,000 and $150,000.

Thomas Jefferson once said that as soon as the USA becomes a two-party system, we will no longer be run by the people, for the people, but rather by the government and the wealthy who run it for their own means. The country has been a two-party system for nearly 100 years, and we've really begun to see the drastically negative effects of it in the last 30 years. The smartest thing we can do as a people, is to drop your party affiliation and register as an Independent. Make the Democrat and Republican parties *earn* your vote by proving they can provide for your future by making honest decisions in Washington.

Unfortunately, hindsight is 20/20. The best chance this country had to begin to correct itself was in 1992 and 1996 when Perot was running for president. Go to http://perotcharts.com to see why. He's a man who truly has the best interests of the majority of American people in mind. Neither party will turn this country around. Their voting record on laws passed as proven that. It's going to take an outside force to undo the problems that have been building for decades. A rising independent party, a revolution, a rebellion.. who knows? But it won't be a Democrat, and it won't be a Republican. They're too tied down by party loyalty and corporate earnings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Anozireth',index.php?page=Thread&postID=76468#pos t76468

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Ðeceased',index.php?page=Thread&postID=76338#post 76338

I have to say, out of all the Republican candidates, I am sooo pleased it's McCain that's running the show. I dunno why ^^

---

I'd definitely have to agree with that. But I know exactly why I agree. :P The other two that had a real chance at it were super religious types that would set forth ridiculous policies because "god told me to." The founders of this country clearly believed that religion had no place in politics, and for good reason. It is always unfortunate when politicians feel that they don't need to honor that.

I also have a great deal of respect for McCain's military service, even if I'm not sure I would always agree with his policies. I feel that he would always give very serious consideration to the consequences of military action, rather than thinking "we'll be greeted as liberators".

---

I've got to disagree with you about one guy.. Mitt Romney. Although he is personally religious, he never let his personal beliefs affect the will of the majority of the people he represented. I can only hope McCain picks him for VP. Unfortunately again, he's a part of the two problems in this country - the Democrat and Republican parties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Ðeceased',index.php?page=Thread&postID=76338#post 76338

And it's not just down to the population being healthier and more able to work. It frees up disposable income that would otherwise be tied up in personal savings, encouraging consumer spending and thus further promotes growth. Or for those already in debt, it offers the chance to climb the employment market without having to worry about excessive costs to themselves or their families until they are able to pay etc.

I'm really sorry but I don't understand this general dislike of a publicly funded health care system. Is it purely monetarily disliked? but if only the richest people carry the cost, surely everyone else would love it.. no? or is there something else I haven't heard of, as I'm way over the other side of the Atlantic.

---

Show me an example of a government nationalizing health care and the result being faster, better, cheaper healthcare.

Also, you are correct that only the richest people would carry the system. This is evil incarnate. Why should people be allowed to own BMWs when I'm stuck with an old beater? I mean, shouldn't we all get the same privileges as the upper crust? What about people who can't afford air conditioning/heating in adverse climate regions? Shouldn't the rich people with central air have to give something up so poor folks can have cooling and heating, too? Oh, and how about gas prices? Shouldn't they jack up the price of super unleaded to like $20/gallon so the poor people who can only afford regular unleaded are subsidized by the mean old rich people who drive cars that require super? My point, as vaguely as I could possibly make it, is that once you start down this path, where does it end? When people feel entitled to freely usurp the earnings of people who work harder/smarter/longer than them and are backed up by a government that will jail/fine/assault/kill people who do not want to give up their hard-earned cash, what incentive would they have to do for themselves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Kissell13',index.php?page=Thread&postID=71966#pos t71966

I actually believe the exact opposite of that statement. In my opinion, there is a lot of people out there who have had enoughh of the bad economics that the current presidential staff has so kindly created for us over the last 8 years. Personally I say put Bill C back in charge. He had the economy going strong and I believe that the American populace is ready for democratic party in the white house again. That being said, I know jack about politics and its all just my 2c

---

Were you alive and watching the news in the 90's? Bill C isn't any better than what's gone on the last 8 years. The *economy* may have looked good on outside numbers (GDP, surplus, unemployment), but ask the millions of Americans working manufacturing jobs in the Midwest/Northeast how well NAFTA and outsourcing has worked for them. Policies enforced by Clinton have only continued to screw a large portion of people in this country during Bush's terms. Clinton pushed for permanent trade privileges with China in 2000 that severely had an adverse affect on American workers and further pushed the trade deficit in China's favor. Chinese goods are subject to a 2.5% tariff entering the USA. Our goods are subject to a 25% tariff going to China. Do the math. Bill C's policies is what caused the worry over inflation enough for Greenspan to lower interest rates to all-time lows around 2001. (Remember the Fed always reacts to the economy later than usual, so Bill's last years is what led to 1% interest rates.) These insanely low interest rates is what led to the housing boom, and subsequent greed among lenders, followed by the bust, which is now the primary cause of our bad economy. In 2000, the US Census Bureau reported that the income gap between rich and poor widened during Clinton's years, and every household income below $80,000 lost ground during the Clinton years. The median income relative to inflation (where half the people make more, and half make less), was lower when Clinton left office in 2000 than 10 years prior in 1990. I don't agree with many of the decisions of the Bush administration over last 8 years, but the primary issue in our economy was caused directly by the 1% interest rates from the end of the Clinton administration and the continued disregard for supporting the middle class economy. It's only the very wealthy end of the economy that has continued to improve. Both Clinton and Bush administrations were bad for this country if you're making under $200k a year, which is around 97% of the nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Ughmahedhurtz',index.php?page=Thread&postID=76566 #post76566

Show me an example of a government nationalizing health care and the result being faster, better, cheaper healthcare.

---

Case in point: Canada.
There are thousands of women in Canada who have to come to the USA to have a baby due to hospital overcrowding. All universal healthcare does is amplify the problems the country currently has.

We must FIX the problem with legislation of healthcare reform, not throw another burden on an inefficient government. Look what happened to public schools ever since the government got involved. Did you know that if you have an injury and go to a hospital, they'll charge you a certain rate to treat you if you pay up front with cash or a credit card. Did you know that they charge many insurance companies, especially Medicare, MORE? Did you know that if you have insurance, hospitals are more likely to perform unnecessary tests since they know the bill isn't on the patient? Did you also know that a hospital is more likely to prescribe drugs to someone covered by insurance, even when they may not be necessary? Again, ripping off health insurance. Health insurance companies pass these charges to the businesses that purchase plans, and the cost finally gets passed to the citizen. There's not enough money for the government to audit the $575-590 billion spent on Medicare each year, and a lot of that cost has been unnecessary.

Healthcare costs have directly increased due to malpractice insurance doctors must have, and that cost is passed to the citizen & health insurance company. All to pay off the patient who accidentally had a clamp left in them after surgery and it had to be removed. So that's a $40 million lawsuit, which is ultimately paid for in the end by the other patients as malpractice insurance increases. It's unfortunate that a doctor screwed up and caused a patient to go through another unnecessary surgery to fix the problem, but excessive lawsuits are just one of many major problems.

Legislation to fix these problems is all that is needed to make health coverage in this country affordable for everyone, including employers. We don't need a universal healthcare plan that will only get a return of 20 cents on the dollar due to inefficiency when there are better alternatives, but lobbyists in Washington are looking out for their interests. Drug, health insurance, and medical companies are the primary lobbyists in Washington, and they're all being very "nice" to politicians to make sure they continue to make money off the current system. They don't mind the idea of government run health insurance. It's easier to rip off a government program than a heavily-audited private company anyway. That's more taxpayer money wasted, and that's not ok with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Stealthy',index.php?page=Thread&postID=72000#post 72000

One thing that confused me when I was reading up on this in Wikipedia - The Democrats currently hold a mjority in congress, both in the senate, and the house of reps. Yet the president is a Republican, and has the power to veto any bills that come through congress.

How does any legislation get passed like this? I mean since the president is from the opposing party, wouldn't he just veto any bills the Democrats pass up trhough congress?

---

If the president vetos a bill, Congress can override it with a 2:1 vote or more. This has happened a couple times lately. It's a part of the balance-of-power in Washington. Too bad the balance on all sides favors the wealthy and corporate businesses. Democrats and Republicans both fight for their primary constituents - Democrats for labor unions, minorities, and 'liberal' people, Republicans for religious and 'conservative' people. The problem is that they're two brothers of the same bad family. They both preach to their "people" yet they both enact laws to benefit their friends in big business. When they're in office, they'll enact a 'token' law or two to make it look like they're making progress with regards to their voting group, but it doesn't have much effect in the long term.
Take the new strict bankruptcy laws for example. Most people who declare bankruptcy, even in spite of the foreclosures and economy now, are due to unexpected health issues that go beyond what insurance will cover. However, lending agencies heavily pushed and gave favors to congressmen to pass the new laws. This has come to light with the problems of "Friends of Angelo" and Countrywide home loans that is going on in Washington right now. Countrywide is a home lending company that pushed for this new legislation, and to "bribe" congressmen to back the new law, they gave benefits to these congressment - called Friends of Angelo, the CEO of Countrywide. Don't buy for one minute that these men didn't know they were getting a bribe - they're smart and wealthy for a reason. Both Democrats and Republicans were caught in this, including the recently-relieved-of-duty, Jim Johnson, who was to head Obama's VP search. By the way, Jim Johnson was also the CEO of Fannie Mae - a federally-backed mortgage lender. It's not hard to figure out what's going on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Ðeceased',index.php?page=Thread&postID=72011#post 72011

When did the word "Social" become a bad thing? I see countless selfless acts on some of your TV channels about people helping each other, simply because they have no money or no home or whatnot. But yet somehow, when it comes to politics, these same people vote for those that most damage the ones they are trying to help. I dunno maybe it's just my point of view but you guys could benefit from some left-ish policies.
Minimum wage (at an acceptable level), Free health care, free schooling/university (altho here in England they are moving away from that :S ) etc

---

Social is a wonderful thing when people go out of their way to help people. Social is a bad thing when government (at least our government) walks into your life, takes a big chunk of your paycheck, wastes 80% of that chunk to cover inefficiency, and does what it wants with the little that remains - with the end result in the hands of health/drug companies bank accounts.

All social issues should be left up to states to decide. Our country was founded for the government to protect the people (military), and provide legislation for laws to govern the country. Social issues should be handled where they are - by local and state governments. There's no need for the government to get involved in local/state affairs. Flawed plans, such a social security (which if you really read into it, is a form of pyramid payment plan, which just happens to be *illegal* in the country), Medicare, Medicaid, No Child Left Behind for education (which sounds wonderful, but is horribly flawed), are further proof that the government can't efficiently handle the problems it tries to tackle. If proper laws, with no loopholes for wealthy people/businesses to bypass, were enacted, we wouldn't need these 'social' programs since there would be plenty of well-paying jobs like there were in the 40's/50's/60's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Ðeceased',index.php?page=Thread&postID=76338#post 76338

I don't see how the introduction of a healthcare system for everyone is a bad thing. Sure it may cost a lot of money, but in the long term, the economy will be generally more stable and grow at a much faster rate.

---

Look at it this way..
Is a kid more likely to overspend on an item when he's footing the bill, or his parents are footing the bill?

The kid walks into Best Buy, sees the $6000 80" LCD TV, but knows he can't afford it. The sales assistant realizes he's worked hard for months at $10/hr to be able to afford it, and helps him with a more reasonable selection. So, he buys a nice 40" LCD TV for $1800, and skips on the extended warranty, overpriced cables, universal remote, fancy TV stand, etc. He arrives at home with his $2000 TV after taxes and enjoys a fantastic HD picture and feels good about the money he's spent. It's 1080p, fully functional, and does exactly what it's supposed to do - display HD TV in all its glory.

Another kid walks into Best Buy with his parents' credit card, sees the $6000 80" LCD TV, and likes it as well. The sales assistant sees the parents' plastic and pushes for $500 extended warranty, $100 HDMI cables, $400 TV stand, $100 universal remote, etc. The kid makes the purchase, comes home with his $7500 TV after taxes and enjoys a fantastic HD picture. It's 1080p, fully functional, and does exactly what it's supposed to do - display HD TV in all its glory.

That's how health insurance works from hospitals right now. With socialized healthcare, the government will collect $X from every working person every year, lose Y% of it due to inefficiency, then pay much more than an uninsured would at a hospital visit due to unnecessary procedures/tests/drugs. Don't be fooled - running a hospital is a business, and although there are a lot of honorable doctors out there, there are bottom lines to be made, and government-provided money is a easy target for extortion. The solution isn't socialized healthcare. It's legislation to fix the many problems invovled with healthcare. Legislation is an inexpensive fix, and previous government programs have proven they don't work very well in this country.

I think it's important to make a clear distinction between private health insurance and government run health insurance here. Hospitals do not charge private insurance more than an uninsured person, they charge them less. Private insurance companies will not pay for useless tests or unneeded procedures. The insurance companies bargain with the hospitals to get discounts. How else could private insurance ever hope to turn a profit?

You're certainly correct about government insurance though. It's amazing how inefficient things can become when there is no need to worry about making money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Anozireth',index.php?page=Thread&postID=76647#pos t76647

You're certainly correct about government insurance though. It's amazing how inefficient things can become when there is no need to worry about making money.

---

Medicare/Medicaid is the government health insurance I was referring to, then generalizing about health insurance after "universal healthcare" would be enacted. If universal healthcare were brought into play, why should my employer continue to provide health insurance? Exactly - that's what'll happen in the long run.. everyone will fall under the inefficient umbrella of government health insurance.

As for VA hospitals... don't get me started. They use the cheapest crap possible and cut so many corners, without regard to the quality of the devices used. When they're offered the choice of a quality stent with a 4% failure rate over 5 years for $1200 (well under non-government hospital price), or a cheap stent with an 38% failure rate over a 5 year period for $900, they go cheap. That's a drastic difference in quality for a 33% markup. Some things in healthcare should NOT be done at the expense of the patient's health, especially over a $300 difference when the cost of the procedure is around $5,000-$20,000. How much is the surgery going to cost when that stent breaks and they need to be in the O.R. again? That's right, Medicare will pay for it... more government waste and needless agony for the patient.

Quote:

---

People complain about the financial cost of the Iraq War, but our *entire* defense budget (the war, paying soldiers, paying benefits to retired soldiers, running military bases all over the world, building new and maintaining vehicles, ships, and aircraft, and paying contractors for military training simulations) is less than the cost of a failing Medicare program by $20-40 billion.

---

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7304300.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financi...f_the_Iraq_War

“The financial cost of the war..[ ].. over $845 billion to the U.S., with the total cost to the U.S. economy estimated at $3 trillion.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

Quote:

---

Show me an example of a government nationalizing health care and the result being faster, better, cheaper healthcare.

Also, you are correct that only the richest people would carry the system. This is evil incarnate. Why should people be allowed to own BMWs when I'm stuck with an old beater? I mean, shouldn't we all get the same privileges as the upper crust? What about people who can't afford air conditioning/heating in adverse climate regions? Shouldn't the rich people with central air have to give something up so poor folks can have cooling and heating, too? Oh, and how about gas prices? Shouldn't they jack up the price of super unleaded to like $20/gallon so the poor people who can only afford regular unleaded are subsidized by the mean old rich people who drive cars that require super? My point, as vaguely as I could possibly make it, is that once you start down this path, where does it end? When people feel entitled to freely usurp the earnings of people who work harder/smarter/longer than them and are backed up by a government that will jail/fine/assault/kill people who do not want to give up their hard-earned cash, what incentive would they have to do for themselves?

---

Evil incarnate? Wow. Way to take things way out of proportion. We aren’t talking about full blown communism here dude. In principle I agree with you, communism is incredibly detrimental to society, both financially and socially.
But we are talking about providing a service, paramount to people’s health, which should be provided, to ALL, no matter of ability to pay, or previous health problems, because it is the basis, in a society as rich as yours or my own, for human rights, which your country values highly I believe.
If the fire service in your country were run like the health service what is the incentive to put out a fire in someone’s house who isn’t insured?
I could not for one second imagine firemen going up to a burning building and go.. “Right well we’ve got everyone out.. Do they have insurance? No, you say?! Hmm, can they pay? .. Well that’s a shame. Good luck”
Same deal with the police.

Why can't I imagine something like that happening?

Because It isn't run for a financial benefit! It's run out of the moral obligation to help those in need, and guess how it's financed? taxes. Yes the ones that rich ppl contribute a lot too (one hopes).
You could argue that people wouldn't allow something like that to happen.. right? Well it happens in health care..

I apologise if I sound somewhat peeved. But I don’t take kindly to someone calling my own personal beliefs ie the belief that everyone should be given an equal opportunity to life itself, to be evil incarnate.
Please understand, I am not trying to belittle the healthcare system in the US, as many of you said it needs reforms, especially the Medicare program. But this isn’t because it’s government run. It’s because the people in charge are idiots that should have been fired a long time ago.

Quote:

---

Show me an example of a government nationalizing health care and the result being faster, better, cheaper healthcare.

---

Germany.. France..
See this is where matter of opinion comes into play.
On the one hand the US system: Those with adequate insurance, and of certain respectability will get the red carpet treatment. The US might have very good results to speak of when looking at the treatment of those with insurance. But what about the uninsured?

Now I'm not going to say that the UK has a good system, because to be perfectly honest it's a load of crap. Would we change it for a system currently adopted in the US? That would be a no. And again please don’t see this as some anti-American viewpoint because it truly isn’t. It is just that the UK populous would never allow the NHS to be taken away from them. The protection of those most vulnerable in our society is what many strive for.
I would like to point something out here btw.

The UK and US are nearly polar opposites when it comes to health care, and tbh perfect examples of how fudged up it can get.
The reason I mention France and Germany is twofold. Firstly because they are examples of better Healthcare systems then both the US and the UK, but adopt two different methods.

In France it’s almost exclusively government run. It has, according to the World health organisation (WHO) the BEST healthcare system in the World! Why is it so good? Well I make fun of the French some times, that they complain and strike about pretty much everything. But that is the beauty of it. If the general population is the governing body over how well something is doing, there is little room for inefficiency and corruption. It does still happen, but ppl are nearly lynched for it.

EDIT: soz got carried away there. The entire population must pay compulsory health insurance. The insurers are non-profit independent agencies not linked to the State. A premium is deducted from all employees' pay automatically. An employee pays 0.75% of salary to this insurance, and the employer pays an amount to the value of 12.8% of the employee's salary. Those earning less than 6,600 euros per year do not make health insurance payments. (which essentially is tax, but the money is handled independently )

Germany on the other hand is at a 65%-35% split in govt-private health care. How does it work there? Well the national health coverage is universal, however if ppl (usually richer people) were to prefer private treatment and health insurance they are welcome to do so. However they will always have that fundamental universal coverage provided to them by law.

Quote:

---

Case in point: Canada.
There are thousands of women in Canada who have to come to the USA to have a baby due to hospital overcrowding. All universal healthcare does is amplify the problems the country currently has.

---

I hate to throw something else up in the air :P but If those 40-45million people in the US who don’t have health insurance were treated properly (as they deserve), there might be some more overcrowding. These are after all the people that are likely to need it most, and yet they are left behind.

Quote:

---

We must FIX the problem with legislation of healthcare reform, not throw another burden on an inefficient government. Look what happened to public schools ever since the government got involved. Did you know that if you have an injury and go to a hospital, they'll charge you a certain rate to treat you if you pay up front with cash or a credit card. Did you know that they charge many insurance companies, especially Medicare, MORE? Did you know that if you have insurance, hospitals are more likely to perform unnecessary tests since they know the bill isn't on the patient? Did you also know that a hospital is more likely to prescribe drugs to someone covered by insurance, even when they may not be necessary? Again, ripping off health insurance. Health insurance companies pass these charges to the businesses that purchase plans, and the cost finally gets passed to the citizen. There's not enough money for the government to audit the $575-590 billion spent on Medicare each year, and a lot of that cost has been unnecessary.
Healthcare costs have directly increased due to malpractice insurance doctors must have, and that cost is passed to the citizen & health insurance company. All to pay off the patient who accidentally had a clamp left in them after surgery and it had to be removed. So that's a $40 million lawsuit, which is ultimately paid for in the end by the other patients as malpractice insurance increases. It's unfortunate that a doctor screwed up and caused a patient to go through another unnecessary surgery to fix the problem, but excessive lawsuits are just one of many major problems.
Legislation to fix these problems is all that is needed to make health coverage in this country affordable for everyone, including employers. We don't need a universal healthcare plan that will only get a return of 20 cents on the dollar due to inefficiency when there are better alternatives, but lobbyists in Washington are looking out for their interests. Drug, health insurance, and medical companies are the primary lobbyists in Washington, and they're all being very "nice" to politicians to make sure they continue to make money off the current system. They don't mind the idea of government run health insurance. It's easier to rip off a government program than a heavily-audited private company anyway. That's more taxpayer money wasted, and that's not ok with me.

---

I fully agree (with most of that ^^). There is a huge amount of waste in the UK as well. Sometimes it’s sickening tbh.

We’ve had an exorbitant amount of money recently invested into computerising the NHS nationwide to provide the fastest possible access to adequate health care and information to everyone, yet despite this nothing has been done.
But these problems aren’t because they are government run and thus are destined to fail. It is because the independent governing body over proceedings has failed. And in the cases where that governing body is the government itself, well then it is likely to fail :S

There HAS to be an independent committee whose sole task it is to supervise things like this, with complete transparency. The absence of this means that any health care, whether it be private or not, will eventually collapse. Either through excessive costs or dissatisfaction to the consumer or lack thereof.

And this is the aspect that worries me somewhat. There seems to be some discontent amongst you towards the government as a whole. Believe me people in most countries do. But how the hell did it come to “the lesser of two evils” (as someone put it) to be running for presidency? I mean the government should be at its core an establishment to help everyone in the country to the best of their ability. NOT an establishment to control its populous, with the exception of upholding the laws.

Quote:

---

Social is a wonderful thing when people go out of their way to help people. Social is a bad thing when government (at least our government) walks into your life, takes a big chunk of your paycheck, wastes 80% of that chunk to cover inefficiency, and does what it wants with the little that remains - with the end result in the hands of health/drug companies bank accounts.

All social issues should be left up to states to decide. Our country was founded for the government to protect the people (military), and provide legislation for laws to govern the country. Social issues should be handled where they are - by local and state governments. There's no need for the government to get involved in local/state affairs. Flawed plans, such a social security (which if you really read into it, is a form of pyramid payment plan, which just happens to be *illegal* in the country), Medicare, Medicaid, No Child Left Behind for education (which sounds wonderful, but is horribly flawed), are further proof that the government can't efficiently handle the problems it tries to tackle. If proper laws, with no loopholes for wealthy people/businesses to bypass, were enacted, we wouldn't need these 'social' programs since there would be plenty of well-paying jobs like there were in the 40's/50's/60's.

---

QFT

Quote:

---

Look at it this way..
Is a kid more likely to overspend on an item when he's footing the bill, or his parents are footing the bill?

The kid walks into Best Buy, sees the $6000 80" LCD TV, but knows he can't afford it. The sales assistant realizes he's worked hard for months at $10/hr to be able to afford it, and helps him with a more reasonable selection. So, he buys a nice 40" LCD TV for $1800, and skips on the extended warranty, overpriced cables, universal remote, fancy TV stand, etc. He arrives at home with his $2000 TV after taxes and enjoys a fantastic HD picture and feels good about the money he's spent. It's 1080p, fully functional, and does exactly what it's supposed to do - display HD TV in all its glory.

Another kid walks into Best Buy with his parents' credit card, sees the $6000 80" LCD TV, and likes it as well. The sales assistant sees the parents' plastic and pushes for $500 extended warranty, $100 HDMI cables, $400 TV stand, $100 universal remote, etc. The kid makes the purchase, comes home with his $7500 TV after taxes and enjoys a fantastic HD picture. It's 1080p, fully functional, and does exactly what it's supposed to do - display HD TV in all its glory.

---

I’m sorry, I cringed when you said this! ^^ For me there is a fundamental difference between necessity and luxury which underlines this whole topic. I know you were only trying to make an analogy : )
Necessity should under NO circumstances be refused to anyone. Thusly basic treatments should be available to everyone.
A TV is a luxury, no matter if it’s $6000 or $100.

Quote:

---

That's how health insurance works from hospitals right now. With socialized healthcare, the government will collect $X from every working person every year, lose Y% of it due to inefficiency, then pay much more than an uninsured would at a hospital visit due to unnecessary procedures/tests/drugs. Don't be fooled - running a hospital is a business, and although there are a lot of honorable doctors out there, there are bottom lines to be made, and government-provided money is a easy target for extortion. The solution isn't socialized healthcare. It's legislation to fix the many problems invovled with healthcare. Legislation is an inexpensive fix, and previous government programs have proven they don't work very well in this country.

---

Quote:

---

I think it's important to make a clear distinction between private health insurance and government run health insurance here. Hospitals do not charge private insurance more than an uninsured person, they charge them less. Private insurance companies will not pay for useless tests or unneeded procedures. The insurance companies bargain with the hospitals to get discounts. How else could private insurance ever hope to turn a profit?

You're certainly correct about government insurance though. It's amazing how inefficient things can become when there is no need to worry about making money.

---

This for me would be a valid reason against a government run universal health care system as it currently stands.

Just to argue the point. It's amazing how efficient things can become when there is a need to worry about making money. (please note this can be taken negatively :) )

But the truth is, as you pointed out in part, it is because there isn’t enough legislation, or simply wrong legislation protecting the patient, doctor and those taxed or ultimately paying for it. If there is enough protection in those three departments then it doesn’t matter if it’s public or private.

I hope I didn’t cause a stir :P I do think I got an answer to my original question though ^^

EDIT: oh holy cow.. Bit too much of a WALLOTEXT :S and I rly don't have time to go through it correcting my sbelink/grammatical mistakes :S

Well, I guess this is where you and I just agree to disagree, then. I believe the US system has its flaws but I also believe that onerous government regulation, taxation and corruption is at the root of those flaws. We can argue 'til the cows come home about details and probably agree on a lot of things.

Glad we answered your original question. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Ughmahedhurtz',index.php?page=Thread&postID=78226 #post78226

Well, I guess this is where you and I just agree to disagree, then. I believe the US system has its flaws but I also believe that onerous government regulation, taxation and corruption is at the root of those flaws. We can argue 'til the cows come home about details and probably agree on a lot of things.

Glad we answered your original question. ;)

---

I was playing devils advocate a little here, because I wanted to highlight the root of discontent. Many of you seem pretty appalled (as I am too) of the US government's running of medicare. I just wanted to really highlight that it's not so much an even split between private=good, public=bad which I got the impression many of you felt.

Economically a privately run facility/company has to be commercially viable to succeed. The problem there is that cutting too many corners in a area such as healthcare, is in my mind, unethical (this is where legislation to protect consumers or those who would like to be consumers comes in, yet it seems to be often ignored for financial gain).
A government run facility should, I stress should, provide treatment to all, as it has the funds at its disposal to do so. But as you rightly pointed out, incentive and efficiency are often an issue. Again this is where legislation and in both cases an independent assessor is needed (one that can't be bought).

As regards to corruption, I don't understand how so much can take place. I was flabbergasted at the amount of bribes handed out with regards to healthcare alone! Why aren't they held accountable? Why aren't they fined and fired, or even put in jail.
Soz sometimes I feel I should go into politics just so i can go sort out the crap that goes on.. save the counrty a couple of billion whilst I'm at it! :P

Ð

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Ðeceased',index.php?page=Thread&postID=78383#post 78383

Economically a privately run facility/company has to be commercially viable to succeed. The problem there is that cutting too many corners in a area such as healthcare, is in my mind, unethical (this is where legislation to protect consumers or those who would like to be consumers comes in, yet it seems to be often ignored for financial gain).
A government run facility should, I stress should, provide treatment to all, as it has the funds at its disposal to do so. But as you rightly pointed out, incentive and efficiency are often an issue. Again this is where legislation and in both cases an independent assessor is needed (one that can't be bought).

As regards to corruption, I don't understand how so much can take place. I was flabbergasted at the amount of bribes handed out with regards to healthcare alone! Why aren't they held accountable? Why aren't they fined and fired, or even put in jail.
Soz sometimes I feel I should go into politics just so i can go sort out the crap that goes on.. save the counrty a couple of billion whilst I'm at it! :P

Ð

---

Government-run facilities suck. Those are military and VA hospitals, which I've been to many times. They're a waste of money because they aren't run efficiently like a business, and provide sub-standard care using the cheapest medical products they can find in an effort to cut corners. I'm all with Ughmahedhurtz on these topics. The more the government is involved, the more money is wasted. The government should only be involved in providing sufficient laws to create a level playing field in all walks of life. It worked in the past, before government waste and bad laws let things get out of control. You don't need government-run healthcare for healthcare to be affordable.

My reference above to the TV sale still applies as a valid analogy. The point isn't about necessity versus luxury; it's about unnecessary expenditures versus what will do the job correctly based on who's paying the bill. Hospitals will nickel and dime every unncessary test and drug when the government (Medicare) is paying the bill. They *won't* do this if you are paying the bill and seem concerned about the cost vs reward for these tests/drugs.

With regards to corruption, that's what happens when both major political parties are represented by a majority of corrupt politicians. The fact that so many voters are clueless and tend to only vote for the names they recognize doesn't help solve the problem. Far too many people don't understand that there are much better choices than the two parties/candidates that spend the most money in elections. I'm not saying Ralph Nader and the Green Party is the answer either. As crazy as it sounds, Jesse Ventura would make a better president than McCain and Obama. Ventura is well aware of the political corruption and has a no-bullshit attitude toward people who aren't doing the right thing. That's why he's dropped party affiliation and is now an Independent. Lou Dobbs is another name that comes to mind of someone who could help the country. Unfortunately, he's making far too much money now to take a pay cut and run for the highest office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Ðeceased',index.php?page=Thread&postID=78109#post 78109

I hate to throw something else up in the air :P but If those 40-45million people in the US who don’t have health insurance were treated properly (as they deserve), there might be some more overcrowding. These are after all the people that are likely to need it most, and yet they are left behind.

---

I agree with you, and here's why

Those 40-45 million people in the US who don't have health care insurance would get treated properly (as they deserve) if we would focus on treating LEGAL and VERIFIED NEEDY US Citizens first.
The system is groaning and straining from people Legal and Illegal abusing the system.

The 'Left' wants to 'mother', 'coddle' and take care of the world, but the Dem Ideal is also about 1/4 inch away from the full-blown ideal of Communism.

The Dems can't stand to see one person with a LOT of money, so they demand that, that person "Share the wealth" (Pretty sure I read that in a manifesto someone wrote a long time ago)
The problem with THAT plan is, they don't give a damn WHO it's handed out to. (If they did a background check or something MAYBE just MAYBE it would have some hope of working)
They don't care if this rich person's money went to a family or person that truly needed it, or if it went to some low-life leech, drug-dealer etc.
Ironically also, the Dems make all of these 'social' plans and then raise taxes to pay for them, and it hits the people they think they're helping the hardest.

The Right says, "you can do it, you can make money, this is America"
The Left says, "No you can't, come here, we'll take care of you the rest of your life"

Republicans want a small Government that stays the hell out of people's business.
Democrats want a HUGE Government that takes care of everyone, even those who don't need it.
Almost like a Mother with 'Munchausen's by Proxy Syndrome'

Example: Sad-but-true story. It Was told on NPR (So the Liberals know it's true ;P )

A guy living in New Mexico, he's on Welfare, but he's constantly going across the border and running drugs and making over $2000 a week doing it (unreported of course)
One day his drug deal in Mexico goes bad, he gets shot in the leg.
He drags himself back over the border (that's how NPR described it, I'm sure he drove) goes to the nearest U.S. hospital and gets.......drumroll "FREE HEALTH CARE"
Because he has all his welfare insurance cards etc....even though this guy is bringing in an unreported $2000+ grand a week.

Example 2: True Story

A relative of mine, gets a divorce, moves to a Republican run state with her two kids, she goes on Welfare.
The Republican State says "Hmmmm, let's HELP HER by, giving her a FREE car, and a FREE COLLEGE EDUCATION that way she can get a job and get off Welfare and be financially independant."

She goes to school for FREE, becomes a Registered Nurse, and now, can work ANYWHERE , starting at, at least $23 an hour. (before the education she had the potential to make Minimum Wage at a Walmart)

Which was cheaper for the state? (Giving her a free Car and Free College Tuition, or paying her Welfare for the rest of her life?), do the math.....

Republican Plan: Free Car ($1000-2000), + Two Year Tuition ($2000-$5000?) = Total cost to the State $3000-$7000. She learned a skill and doesn't need Welfare =
TWO YEARS TOTAL Investment for the state, a lifetime of the State not having to support her.

Democrat Plan: $700 a month + $200 food stamps For ONE YEAR = $10,800 ......FOR LIFE = $10,800*30 = $324,000 FOR ONE PERSON, no education provided, she would remain DEPENDANT on the State

Which is better? Doing it the Republican way, or the Democratic way?
The Republican way taught her a skill, got her back on her feet and said "There ya go!, glad to have helped"
The Democratic way would've kept her in Poverty, Reliant on the State, barely scraping by from Month to Month, all the while saying "You poor Dear, we HATE seeing you live like this, we'll try and get those nasty rich people to help you out, in the meantime, here, let's give you just enough foodstamps to survive from month to month, and we'll give you a welfare check that you could never afford an apartment with, but that's OK we have subsidized housing that really really cheap that you can live in, but you'll want to lock your doors at night because it's in a REALLY shitty neighborhood"

Yea, when I was in my 20's I was a hardcore "Establishment Hater"
Hell, I think a good 90% of the time I would just say "Reagan Sucks" just because I was "expected" or "Supposed" to hate the President at that age.....But honestly I had no clue at the time, it was just something you're supposed to do at that age.

A good quote (allegedly from Winston Churchill) "Show me a young man who's a Republican, and I'll show you a man with no Heart. Show me an Old man who's a Democrat and I'll show you a man with no Brains"

Perceptions change with age.

I'm embarrassed now, that I was such an 'automatic Liberal' without ever looking at the facts........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Occam\'s Razor',index.php?page=Thread&postID=81021#post8102 1

Republicans want a small Government that stays the hell out of people's business.
Democrats want a HUGE Government that takes care of everyone, even those who don't need it.

---

That's what has been said, but both Republicans *and* Democrats have been boosting government bloat for years. Republicans have strayed from their role of small government, and it seems that only Ron Paul has a clue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Occam\'s Razor',index.php?page=Thread&postID=81021#post8102 1

Yea, when I was in my 20's I was a hardcore "Establishment Hater"
Hell, I think a good 90% of the time I would just say "Reagan Sucks" just because I was "expected" or "Supposed" to hate the President at that age.....But honestly I had no clue at the time, it was just something you're supposed to do at that age.
...
I'm embarrassed now, that I was such an 'automatic Liberal' without ever looking at the facts........

---

I was like that in high school.. pushing for liberal ideals. Once I made it halfway through college and spent enough time hanging with these wannabe pro-change-everything nutbags, most of which didn't even have faint concept of knowledge, I walked away from them. They wanted to rebel and fight against something - they were great at yelling and trying to emulate their parents from the 60's, but they couldn't even answer simple questions about government, world politics, or economy. I really began to understand the years of hard work in college that it takes to become successful in life, and although there are options other than college, it is far from guaranteed. As I used the knowledge gained from years of hard work, I further understood the importance of keeping the government out of people's lives, especially since I see firsthand how the government wastes money. However, continued empty promises from both parties at the cost of the quality of living for the majority of people in the country has me firm in the belief that both parties seek the same goal: Continue their re-election through empty promises to their constituents, and grow their own pockets at any cost.

The "social" differences between the parties - abortion / gay marriage / gun control / etc.. many seem important to some people, but they don't affect *everyone* with as much impact as government involvement, waste of taxed dollars, and corruption at all levels of both major political parties.

I have been looking to PBS programs and the real news for political coverage. I stopped watching the main stream media after seeing Paris Hilton every night. I think in this day and age news need to be conveyed at a pace similar to the rate at witch life moves. I don't have 3+ hours a day to read about or watch what congress is wasting time on these days. PBS programs do a great job of making it interesting and informative.

http://therealnews.com/t/

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?o...74&jumival=165

http://www.pbs.org/

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/watch/

Quote:

---

A good quote (allegedly from Winston Churchill) "Show me a young man who's a Republican, and I'll show you a man with no Heart. Show me an Old man who's a Democrat and I'll show you a man with no Brains"

---

Even though a truly great quote, it cannot be taken as more then a humorous remark. I am sure there are countless examples of the above, but also countless of the opposite.

While I agree with your second example about how encouragement into education and work is a good thing, I don't see how that has anything to do with being a democrat or republican.. to me that just looks like simple logic and economics 101. It is a pity if that is what's being proposed by the democrats in the state in question. Welfare and benefits are a good thing. But they must be supervised and controlled properly, and restricted to those who truly need it and are unable to do anything about their situation.

I would also like to point out that the free education, car etc are forms of welfare! But, a good example of how this money should be used. People in these situations often are unaware of the best course of action available to them, and by changing the way they are supported one can directly influence their motivation and open up opportunities for them. But again, this is tbh unrelated to political conviction, more a test of common sense.

Quote:

---

The 'Left' wants to 'mother', 'coddle' and take care of the world, but the Dem Ideal is also about 1/4 inch away from the full-blown ideal of Communism.

The Dems can't stand to see one person with a LOT of money, so they demand that, that person "Share the wealth" (Pretty sure I read that in a manifesto someone wrote a long time ago)

---

>.< when did taking care of the world become a bad thing, or sharing for that matter :P (soz just trying to ruffle some feathers here :P )

I guess it all comes down to what taxation is there for. It is in essence to take from those able to pay, to supply services to everyone (in principle.. in practice, as pointed out, it doesn't always work). This is the case regardless of political party.

In the UK we generally have relatively low income tax (one of the lowest in Europe - before the expansion) and despite myself being in the highest tax bracket already, I am an avid Liberal Democrat supporter (even more left then the democrats in the US) who would in turn increase the amount of tax I pay.
However! they, out of all the political parties in the UK have the best economic policy for the UK. I know to some of you that might sound like a contradiction in terms, but it is true nonetheless. And whilst much of it is directed at aiding those in need, there is huge emphasis on reforming the welfare system in the UK (as we too have some of the problems that appear in the US) as well as reducing the money that goes to waste.
an additional plus for the Liberal Democrats in the UK is that they are the only party that want to see changes made to the way politicians etc are held accountable when they are in breach of laws. Currently these things are swept under the carpet when it involves politicians :S

And just to make a point. This isn't change for the sake of change. It is change to correct injustices within the governmental system as a whole.

The Lib Dems additionally are among the few political parties that want to see a return to free university level education to underprivileged people - based on ability to pay.
To me the example you gave and the strategy proposed by the liberal democrats in this country are one and the same.. so is it republican or democrat? Or is it just basic common sense?

Quote:

---

The Dems can't stand to see one person with a LOT of money, so they demand that, that person "Share the wealth" (Pretty sure I read that in a manifesto someone wrote a long time ago)
The problem with THAT plan is, they don't give a damn WHO it's handed out to. (If they did a background check or something MAYBE just MAYBE it would have some hope of working)
They don't care if this rich person's money went to a family or person that truly needed it, or if it went to some low-life leech, drug-dealer etc.
Ironically also, the Dems make all of these 'social' plans and then raise taxes to pay for them, and it hits the people they think they're helping the hardest.

---

hmm.. meah.. Ok. take me, for a second. I have no objection to people succeeding in life, making money etc. Sure I may be jealous of millionaires. But that's just human nature. It makes me want to do better (even though for me money isn't necessarily the main motivation).
The need to tax those who do well, however immoral that may sound to people (punishing those who do well - sounds nearly counter-intuitive), is required as it is the only way to insure a functioning society. You feed and educate the poor in order to facilitate growth and prosperity, which in turn means more money for the rich.
I agree over-taxation is a problem, especially when most of that money is being wasted, but it is still necessary. (not over-taxation.. just taxation :P )

Quote:

---

Republicans want a small Government that stays the hell out of people's business.
Democrats want a HUGE Government that takes care of everyone, even those who don't need it.

---

If that were true, then:
Republican: everyone would be left to fend for themselves, even those unable to (Ie they suffer and possibly die)
Democrat: If the rich don't need it, yet everyone including them receive from it, would they also not benefit from this?

again, I don't actually believe those things, I am just providing the equally stereotyping polar opposite.

You see, that's the problem with stereotyping. There is always one side that looks idealistic and one that doesn't. I am sure you have heard the other, "Republicans only care about their pockets!!.. Are evil!!" yadayada etcetc..

I hate it! all of it!! no matter who it's directed at!

A vast majority of the things you mentioned are not down to political failings by either party. They are simply failings. Interdepartmental and intradepartmental, within society as a whole, usually caused by someone not doing their job properly or down to maliciousness.
Governmental and political failings are among those, but the ideals of a party aren’t to blame (unless it’s a party’s policy to fail.. but then failing would mean an actual success as they achieved what they set out to do. So in actual fact the best party to have in power is one that wants to fail, as when they eventually fail at failing, they ultimately do well by their peers – or just simply one that wants to succeed :P).
Most of these failings are down to the individuals who at present make up the party in question, and how they are dealt with when they screw up.
I mentioned earlier, supervision over the departments of a government should be a priority to make sure that any government, whether far right or far left, works within the boundaries of good economic policy, as well as human and civil / international policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by '-silencer-',index.php?page=Thread&postID=81161#post81161

I was like that in high school.. pushing for liberal ideals. Once I made it halfway through college and spent enough time hanging with these wannabe pro-change-everything nutbags, most of which didn't even have faint concept of knowledge, I walked away from them. They wanted to rebel and fight against something - they were great at yelling and trying to emulate their parents from the 60's, but they couldn't even answer simple questions about government, world politics, or economy.

---

By pro-change-everything nutbags are we talking antiestablishmentarianists?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by '-silencer-',index.php?page=Thread&postID=81161#post81161

I really began to understand the years of hard work in college that it takes to become successful in life, and although there are options other than college, it is far from guaranteed. As I used the knowledge gained from years of hard work, I further understood the importance of keeping the government out of people's lives, especially since I see firsthand how the government wastes money. However, continued empty promises from both parties at the cost of the quality of living for the majority of people in the country has me firm in the belief that both parties seek the same goal: Continue their re-election through empty promises to their constituents, and grow their own pockets at any cost.

---

Can’t argue with that generally, but I keep thinking to myself that they shouldn’t be allowed to waste money without repercussions (sorry to keep mentioning it)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by '-silencer-',index.php?page=Thread&postID=81161#post81161

The "social" differences between the parties - abortion / gay marriage / gun control / etc.. many seem important to some people, but they don't affect *everyone* with as much impact as government involvement, waste of taxed dollars, and corruption at all levels of both major political parties.

---

QFT - unfortunately our society is driven by social aspects of all kinds. Whether it be how a politician looks, down to what some doped up celebrity did on a weekend..
My point is, so much time and money are wasted, as you say, on debate over abortion/gay marriage etcetc when ultimately the foundation for all those is and always has been human and civil rights.
Thus rendering most debate over these topics as utterly pointless. Unless they are to facilitate education and understanding about them.
Unfortunately most debate about them is highly superficial :S

Ð

EDIT: again in a rush, so no time to check for spelling/grammatical mistakes :S

EDIT2:

soz i forgot to address your other point :S

Quote:

---

Those 40-45 million people in the US who don't have health care insurance would get treated properly (as they deserve) if we would focus on treating LEGAL and VERIFIED NEEDY US Citizens first.
The system is groaning and straining from people Legal and Illegal abusing the system.

The 'Left' wants to 'mother', 'coddle' and take care of the world, but the Dem Ideal is also about 1/4 inch away from the full-blown ideal of Communism.

---

People abusing the system is not something democrats condone by any means.

There is an argument for treatment of all, again under the basis for human rights, and equality within that, to supply emergency treatment for everyone regardless of legality, nationality, race, gender or financial situation, but only when denial of said treatments would lead to that persons death or severe and irreparable injury.


EDIT3:

Quick question, that I'm sure some of you will scream at ^^

you mentioned this guy in new mexico
(and the problem there by the way wasn't the democrats but the boarder police/normal police not enforcing the law, and the organization coordination welfare handouts not investigating this applicant fully)

There is a proposition here in the UK (by the lib dems) to legalise drugs.. all drugs!

Now I know the thought of it will instil images of people falling all over the place, coked out of their brains, abusing drugs etc everywhere you go. Gangs raining supreme etc etc

But think about it for a second :)

If drugs are legal.. what happens to all the drug gangs? (estimated to make up around 48% of crime in the UK).. they have no drugs to smuggle, to make money off..
If the drug addicts that would normally steal assault people (making up a further 26% of crime in the UK) in order to get drugs illegally, were now able to get them from the government (controlled of course! under tight restrictions depending on circumstance, not just free handouts).. and entered into drug rehabilitation programs as a prerequisite to receiving drugs.
What if 2 out of every 5 people in jail in the UK, who is involved in drugs, could have been working in the drugs business, legally, paying tax. (btw the reason it's only 2 out of 5 (ie 40%) vs over 70% of crime in Britain is related to jail sentence)

Translate this scenario over to the US.

What if import and export of drugs were taxable and legal. would it not free up a huge proportion of the law enforcement to concentrate on more serious crime.
would it not improve trade, thus revenue.
would it not also provide tax revenue.

what is the best way to control criminals? make them work for you.. for the better of society instead of against it.
Yes drugs are a horrible thing, but to restrict their flow successfully, I would much rather they be in the hands of a competent government, then in the hands of a competent drugs lord.
It's a consumer world, and unfortunately people also consume drugs. They will be consumed regardless of legality. Make them legal and you remove a highly volatile and costly aspect of them.. right? :P

Just a quick point! :) I'm not saying all illegal activity by people so far, should go unpunished and that it should be them doing the legal stuff. Criminals should be punished/rehabilitated.
The drugs trade needs replacing and should be run by conscientious people.


EDIT4: (i have to stop thinking :S ) I just wanted to add something before I'm flamed for something I didn't mean. I have mentioned the police etc a few times, with regards to failing on certain aspects of law enforcement etc. But I wish to make it absolutely clear that I do not by any means want to say that the police are incompetent. Simply that within the police force there are often people in higher positions who are not up to the task, and thus hinder proper law enforcement. Government policy can impact this to a degree, especially when looking at financing the police and other security services. These are some aspects where development into a more efficient system are also necessary.

I completely agree on the idea of legalizing ALL drugs.
This is a serious post, not a tongue-in-cheek, or sarcastic post.

1. Legal Drugs means no Illegal Drug Pushers/Gangs etc.
2. Legal Drugs with a TAX, like Alcohol and Tobacco = Big Revenue
3. Why should ANY Government tell me what I can and can't Smoke/Drink/Ingest and Inject (This would get approved a LOT quicker if Congress had Term Limits, it would weed out the 100 year old congressmen)
4. Would save Millions, if not Billions on Law Enforcement, "The War on Drugs" and all those other resources being wasted that don't stop anyone from getting drugs any way.
5. Medical Marijuana, people who need that type of pain relief would actually get it, instead of being denied by some tight-assed VERY OLD members of Congress.
Just like the Gun Control issues, Criminals will get Guns whether there's a law or not, the only people it would affect are the law-abiding gun-toting citizens.

But I assume thanks to all the lobbying by the Alcohol and Tobacco industries that's why they remain legal. Keep the Congressmen in their pockets so-to-speak.

Especially when you look at how many deaths are caused by Alcohol and Tobacco, Alcohol is Poisonous to EVERY Organ in your Body, it can kill you just as it can get you to kill someone,
accidental or otherwise, yet IT is legal, and yet the argument most people take about keeping Drugs Illegal is "It can kill you just as it can get you to kill someone, accidental or otherwise"

The Local papers (at least in the U.S.) usually have a section where you can read stuff like "Joe Blow (Age 54) was arrested last night for DUI, this is his 22nd offense"
But I have YET to read "Jane Doe (29) was arrested last night for driving under the influence of Weed" or Heroin, Cocaine, hell even just the word "Narcotic"

It seems Congress doesn't mind people driving drunk (Just ask Ted Kennedy about Chappaquiddick), but they obviously must think that people are completely incapable of driving a car after smoking
a little weed once in a while.

Honestly, how many fights have you seen break out at a keg party?
Now, How many fights have you seen break out at a POT party?

Big Difference

I would go one step farther and Legalize Prostitution too.

Honestly, when you think about, just WHY is paying for Sex a crime?
Married Men do it all the time, in one form or another with their Wives. (I know this 25 year old married guy, who gets Sex maybe twice a year, because his new wife pulled the "It's my body" crap shortly after being married. Now he spends most nights in his bathroom wanking it, just like he had to do BEFORE he was married :D )

1. Prostitutes would be Government Inspected/Regulated and Certified clean, would cut down on STD's
2. Tax Prostitution = Big Revenue. (Between the Drug and Prostitution Tax, some of our Congressmen and Priests would actually pay their fair share for once)

Heh, I may lean to the Right on a lot of issues, but I lean to the Left on things like I mentioned above

P.S. If having more Police PREVENTED Crime, then I would be all for it.
However, Police don't PREVENT Crime, they only get involved AFTER the Crime has been committed.

It pisses me off to no end, seeing Two to Four Cop cars in a Parking lot parked Tail-to-Nose (like horses) so they can have their Driver's side window rolled down and sit and chat all day.
I want to yell "Go Patrol! You might catch someone doing something they shouldn't be doing, rather than sitting here chatting like a knitting-circle and waiting for something to come on the radio"

Hell down here, along I-95 they even park empty cop cars in the medians to get people to stop speeding. lolwut?

I don't have a shiny opinion of the Police, because back in the day when I had shoulder length hair and riding my 10-speed home from a friends house, and getting stopped by the Cops at least four times
in four different nights, because they "didn't like my looks" and just wanted to harass me by accusing me of stealing my own Bike, showed me what arses they can be.