I should've been clear with that last post, I'm not suggesting it'd be a simple copy and paste job, more of a gradual introdocution as you say. Once people have seen the actual system I suspect it'd catch on and become the norm very quickly. There are alot of misconceptions about free healthcare such as the NHS (some of which fuelled by Republicans who aren't in favour of it) and the rest through a simple lack of knowledge on how it operates etc. It would require changing the mindset on the whole agenda but it could be done, in my humble opinion.
I do know where you're coming from. Don't think I don't. And were it virtually any other thing I'd agree. But on healthcare and food I disagree - to me, the two things are rights. Inherent in the right to life is the right to a certain standard of living - that of at least being allowed dignity. That's free healthcare of a high standard, a certain allowance of food and a roof over their heads. For most people, this isn't a problem because they can afford it. But should someone lose their job, struggle to find work and fall ill to a debilitating illness then there's a problem. That person under an annual insurance scheme might not be able to afford to keep up their payments AND pay for their weekly food AND keep up paying the rent, even in pretty basic accommodation. Therefore, their standard of living drops. They might end up on the street, or going hungry every other day, or succumbing to that illness (their standard of living dropping every day as they succumb). It's pretty bleak, and it's something no one should go through which is why to my mind it's a fundamental right. (It's that same standard of living/dignity argument which should be hammered into the government over here regarding their decision to cut winter fuel allowance for pensioners - someone shouldn't have to go cold in sub-zero conditions just because they can't afford a heating bill, especially when they've spent their life working hard for a pleasant retirement). If that's how people feel about their healthcare in the US, then I'd agree with what you've said about getting a system that does operate as a safety net for people's health. It shouldn't be something people have to worry about, at the end of the day.
On the idea that people shouldn't get health care unless they work: I have a pretty good job, and make a pretty good income. But there is _absolutely no way_ that I, or any other person short of a multimillionaire, can achieve security in terms of health care, with the old system in the US. With no caps in health insurance rates and no assurance that coverage can't be cancelled on insurance company whims, then at any moment I can (1) get sick, (2) be unable to work, (3) lose my employer-paid health insurance and (4) be refused private health insurance or be offered private health insurance at rates that I cannot afford. I could work two jobs and save ninety percent of my income for decades, and I would _still_ be bankrupt within a couple of years of developing an expensive illness. And then I would be deprived of high-quality health care. Some people will argue that I could get decent health care with Medicaid. Whether or not that is true, I would nevertheless lose my assets and my home before I would qualify for Medicaid. I would then be the despised too-sick-to-work homeless poor that Americans are being taught to hate so much. There is, again, _no reliable way_ under the old system to assure that that will not happen, no amount of planning or saving or working. I would happily pay a great deal more in taxes, for health care security. Pretty much every single person voting against health care safety nets, and roaring about how evil they are, desperately _need_ those safety nets. They're being manipulated to vote against their own interests.
A business associate of mine had a serious problem. His wife contracted some form of cancer. The insurance he had topped out at a certain dollar figure, and left him to pay for the rest himself. He had a good business, but he had to sell his company, mortgage his home, and max out all his credit cards (destroying his credit rating in doing so) in order to keep up his wife's chemotherapy treatments. He was a reasonably well-off guy before all this happened, but it cost him $1.3 million to keep his wife alive. The last I heard, she was ok, but it cost my associate just about everything he'd spent forty years building. If he'd lived in Canada (where I'm from), this would not have happened.
What? A world in which EVERYONE is entitled to housing, food, day care, and transportation regardless of their economic station in life? What a horrible world that would be. Please don't say Obama promotes that line of thinking, because it is offensive to those of us who actually do. I believe in socializing all of those things you mentioned. I don't think we should give everyone cars. But access to affordable, subsidized, or even free public transportation? Sure. So you know of people getting over on the system? So you held three jobs when others were complaining about not finding them? And I know people who have busted their butts looking for work, even minimum wage work, and couldn’t find it. We can throw anecdotes back and forth all day. We can put measures in place to minimize abuse. But yes, there will always be people who figure out ways of gaming the system (corporations are certainly good at it). That doesn’t mean you punish EVERYONE by refusing to give those benefits. And yes, lots of illegal immigrants come over to the US and take below minimum wage jobs . Should everyone do that? I am sure the corporations would LOVE that. Sometimes even taking a minimum wage job is not the financially smart thing to do. Say you bought into the whole “go to college and make something of yourself” line. You have spent the past 4-8 years in college and grad school becoming an expert in a field and accruing a mountain of student debt, because in the US college isn’t free. With all that debt what makes more financial sense, settling for a minimum wage job or spending those hours job hunting for a job where you can use your training and make enough to pay that debt off before you are a senior citizen? Yes, I believe the richer you and I are the higher percentage in taxes you and I should pay. I am not anti-capitalist. I think capitalism spurs innovation. But I also think those who have reaped the most from our capitalist system should give the most back. Even if we hike up the tax rate on the richest of American guess what? They will STILL be the richest of the Americans. It is not removing their ability to accrue more wealth, just not as rapidly once you get up into the higher echelons of income. But if the system continues the way it is the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. That is heart wrenching. I have dedicated my life to serving my country and I expect more from it. I expect it to provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves, be that housing, food, medical care, or higher education. This “I got mine” attitude that persists among the Right and even many of the moderates is depressing. Accruing wealth is fine but some people need to re-examine their chase of the almighty dollar and acquire some freaking empathy. And that wasn’t specifically directed at you, Felipe, but to America as a whole. We aren’t going to agree on this. There are fundamental differences in the way conservatives and liberals see the world. I used to be very conservative and a registered Republican. So I get the mindset. I’m not certain why my priorities and values changed, but I think living on 5 different continents, in both first world and third world countries, affected my perspective. I have come to the belief that if my neighbor is healthy and fed and housed, then MY quality of life will also be improved, even if it means there is a little less in my wallet.
To clear matters up, I was born in 1955 when there were no government services available for the poor. My father died when I was 12 and we were left destitute. My mother, sister and I received a whopping $49.00 a month from his social security as long as I was in school. Needless to say, this would not even pay the utilities in 1967, let alone put food on the table or clothes on my back. There was no assistance back then but we made do. I had to hunt in order to eat, if I didn't shoot anything, I had no lunch, it was just that simple. As soon as I was of legal age, I went to work in a shipyard. I then got married and now there was my mother, sister, pregnant wife and myself all living off of my small salary. This was when I worked three jobs while others sat on their butts saying there was no work. The same remains today. the illegals aren't all coming to work for below minimum wage. they cut grass, apply insulation, pick crops and do other legitimate work that is available. Millions of them come here and find work, if there was not work here, they would stop coming. Still we have an entire group of people saying that there is no work. Therefore they are "entitled" to government housing, food, transportation and medical care? No one is entitled to anything other than what they can provide for themselves. There are real, legitimate exceptions, those who are truly handicapped and simply cannot work. But those who simply do not want to do the undesirable work that is available can starve as far as I'm concerned. I look around at "the poor" in my country and very few, if any compare to what we we faced with when I was young. So I'm not looking at this from a perspective of fortune or privilege, I'm looking back from a perspective of one who faced poverty and raised myself out of it. America has saddled itself with a nanny state stance. People know that if they choose not to take the work that is available, they will get government assistance for their home, food, transportation and even money just mailed to them every month. They are entitled to none of this simply because they were born.
The Republican field is so weak that I think Obama will win. Not easily by any means, but having the White House and the incumbent's chair will work in his favor. He has my vote, though, only by default -- the only Repub I would vote for is Huntsman, and he won't get the nom.
The November landslide election should be a pretty good indicator of how Americans feel about this administration. Most of the people that i know will vote for anyone to get Obama out. Three years later and he is still blaming Bush for all of his problems when he alone has spent more money in nineteen months than all presidents from Washington to Reagan combined. People are sick of him. (CNSNews.com) - In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan. http://cnsnews.com/node/72404
There is no doubt that he's had problems and made a lot of mistakes. His first two years or so, when he had Congress, were particularly bad. But unless the eventual GOP nominee can pull in more support than any of them currently have, Obama will win again. But he may well be without either chamber of Congress, so he won't be able to do anything without compromising with the GOP (and the GOP won't be able to do anything without compromising with him). That's probably the best; both parties are corrupt and I don't want either of them in control of the whole thing.
Bob and Felipe may not share the same politics but they certainly seem to agree that the head is at its most photogenic when jauntily set twenty-five degrees to the the right. I just tried it, and felt eight per cent more alluring. Since Palin is absent, I hope Obama wins. Re this business about lazy people / scroungers/ players of the system etc In truth, I don't mind supporting those folks either. The attitude says such a great deal about the poverty of their understanding and the abjectness of their internal lives that I think them pitiable. Besides, it's only money.
Not sure the debt raise is his fault, hes had to bail out companies and the world is currently suffering worldwide which he can't control, Britain's debt has gone through the roof too. You can level the fact that he might have bailed out some of the wrong companies as I do believe atleast one went bust, but the others are doing well. Alot of people appear to be levelling the current economic situation at him when in reality, there's not a huge deal that he can do other than create jobs and pump money into the economy through supporting businesses etc. That is alot of course, but he cannot turn this economic situation round just because he's a president, it's a worldwide thing. I personally hold a much more democratic view of things and I think most people outside of America do. It does seem that the people on the edges of America tend to get out more (internationally I mean) and see thing differently to those who've never really left America. Obama will hopefully be re-elected as his opposition is dreadful and in some cases, bat-shit crazy. I do like Ron Paul but I can't see him winning enough of a vote.
Obama sunk billions into a "stimulus package" that created no jobs and was basically pay off for the unions. Never having actually worked, he doesn't have a clue as to how to create new jobs which is actually simple but goes against his beliefs, to lower taxes on small business. His mandatory health care package also places more debt on business owners closing shops everywhere. Most of our problems that he keeps whining about began with another democrat, Bill Clinton who made loans available to people who they knew could not pay them back or were at least, a very bad risk. Still, they point the finger at the conservatives. I keep hearing how dismal everyone thinks the current crop of republicans are with no comparisons to this bumbling, incompetent administration that has the wheel now. Personally I would vote for any of them against Obama, I don't think he stands near the chance of reelection that most here do. But then again, if you get your news from CNBC or CNN, you are getting a very liberal slant and not the true pulse of Americans. Most are fed up with this clown.
Actually, I have a chronic condition that makes my head tilt to the right. It is directly proportional to the amount of alcohol that i consume within a given time period.
All i've ever heard about Bill Clinton, besides the affair and the story of how he went after Bin Laden, is how good he was with the economy. Most of the Republican candidates that i've seen wouldn't last five minutes over here, i'm not sure how people are even voting for them over there. The fact that Ron Paul hasn't walked it in that party baffles me. I read a wide variety of sources, and from what I can see, he hasn't been brilliant (he was never going to be as good as all the hype) but he hasn't been that bad either. The main complaint appears to be how he hasn't really reformed some of the things he said weren't working when he campaigned initially. His polls are down but whose aren't with the economic situation, and his opposition is very poor. He'll get re-elected i'm sure.
The President doesn't have a whole lot to do with the economy. Clinton, however, was forced kicking and screaming into a semblance of fiscal responsibility by the Republican Congress he had to contend with.
Clinton also rode the dot com bubble which swelled up gigantic, then eventually burst because it had no real substance behind it, no bricks or mortar. I think America is sick of the current leadership and rightfully so. as I said, to me, anyone would be preferable. And I hope that beer is a nice cold Carlsberg! None of your American rubbish I couldn't really tell you. I took the medical team to New Orleans for a convention which translates to a week of partying on the company tab. Hurricane Katrina was bearing down on me in that picture and I didn't have a clue or care. Who watches TV when they are in New Orleans?
I can't really comment on how or why, all I know is that he's always connected with how well he did economically. Admittedly what I have heard in detail has come from Democratic followers etc but it does seem that he did well, whatever the case.
On that we can certainly agree. With only a couple exceptions I would boot all of the politicians out of office and start from scratch. 300 million people in the US and this is the best we can do? But I guess there is something behind the idea that people who SHOULD run for office are the types of people who WON'T run for office. I think both parties are too deep in the pockets of corporations. I agree with you we should give incentives to small businesses, but unfortunately it is the large corporations who reap most of the benefits, regardless of who is in office. I realize most people vote based on the economy. For the most part I don’t. As I said before, I think the President’s, and even Congress’, influence on the economy is minimal at best. I’m not saying they have NO influence, but there are other areas in which their influence is greater. So I vote based on things in which they DO have a lot of control: civil liberties, use of military, social programs, education, science funding, and so forth. The type of Justices a President is likely to appoint to the Court is also a major factor for me. And in all of those cases, what the Republican candidates are likely to do, scares me. The Republicans preach “small government” but there is nothing small government about warrantless wiretaps or telling consenting adults who they can and can’t marry. The Democrats are FAR from perfect in defending our civil liberties, but they are better than the Republicans. And of course probably the biggest impact a President can have is how he acts as Commander in Chief. I am particularly sensitive to this, being in the military myself. I don’t agree with everything Obama has done in this area, but I do feel he is a much better steward of the military than his predecessor or any of the Republican candidates. But we’ll see. You say there will be a landslide in November. Polls show Obama beating any of the Republican candidates. But polls aren’t always accurate. What matters is who actually shows up to vote. I think the Right’s hatred of Obama is greater than the Left’s love for him. So even if most voters say they would vote for Obama, the ones who say they won’t may be more motivated to show up at the polls. But if the Republican candidates keep talking and saying stupid things then maybe it will scare the Democrats into voting.
But we’ll see. You say there will be a landslide in November. I was speaking of last November http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/republican-landslide_514639.html Americans in general are sick of this administration, at least the ones that I know. Read that as, the ones who are working for a living under the threat of ever higher taxes. As far as warrant less wiretaps go, a lot has changed after 9/11 and should. Democrats used this fear mongering when actually there aren't enough agents to listen in on what everyday citizens are talking about. Agencies should not have to jump through hoops to gather information about high risk groups such as young, middle eastern males who are taking flying lessons or gathering information about home made explosives on the internet. Gay marriage is a political football and suicide for any conservative who touts morality. Politicians will wet their finger and see which way the wind blows in the polls before taking a stance. Rick Perry is a jerk and one that I am glad showed what an idiot he is. Ron Paul is about our best choice actually, but he won't make it so Romney will probably take it. Gingrich is too controversial although probably the best real one for the job.
