Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Has the US elected a socialist?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
While the doctored picture of the Joker is cryptic and meaningless as jno suggests, our citizenery is becoming increasingly anxious as the progress on a Universal Health Care System moves along. Obama told us (and few listened) just before the election that he wanted to "fundamentally change America". His installation of over 40 czars to oversee various branches of government while, they themselves, are accountable only to him is additionally disconcerting.
The anger and animosity displayed at various locations of "Town Hall" meetings, especially centering on the proposed health system overhaul (truly socialist, in my opinion) is but the tip of the proverbial iceberg in this summer of discontent... More to come, I'm sure as the populace loses it's starry-eyed infatuation with "The One"...
The anger and animosity displayed at various locations of "Town Hall" meetings, especially centering on the proposed health system overhaul (truly socialist, in my opinion) is but the tip of the proverbial iceberg in this summer of discontent... More to come, I'm sure as the populace loses it's starry-eyed infatuation with "The One"...
>I think it was an American who said: "If you think >healthcare is expensive now, wait till you see what it
>costs when it's free"
That was probably said by one of the owners of the massive medical insurance companies who got VERY VERY rich by only insuring healthy people, and then if any of them fall ill they try to wriggle out of it by saying it was a pre-existing condition.
Try to watch Michael Moore's Sicko film if you want to see how awful American medical support is.
Basically if you cant pay you stay ill, or have to visit one of the charity hospitals that are usually in the worst areas of the city.
See this trailer for the film Sicko.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlDAUKSh9CQ
>costs when it's free"
That was probably said by one of the owners of the massive medical insurance companies who got VERY VERY rich by only insuring healthy people, and then if any of them fall ill they try to wriggle out of it by saying it was a pre-existing condition.
Try to watch Michael Moore's Sicko film if you want to see how awful American medical support is.
Basically if you cant pay you stay ill, or have to visit one of the charity hospitals that are usually in the worst areas of the city.
See this trailer for the film Sicko.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlDAUKSh9CQ
Ah yes, socialist. The political equivalent of the n-word !
Apparently they have socialist libraries, socialist garbage collection, socialist schools (and private ones) and other socialist things over there. What they don't have is French healthcare (about 75 per cent of the bill paid by the government , some exemptions) or Dutch healthcare (all private insurance but regulated, must provide basic package to all at fixed rate) or any other system which everyone can get as of right. And they never wonder why people who can well afford private healthcare and insurance here don't have it. Nor why so few do, considering that an employer can offset the premiums ( pay towards those instead of the payroll tax for the NHS).
Isn't Medicare socialist or is it not quite socialist?
Apparently they have socialist libraries, socialist garbage collection, socialist schools (and private ones) and other socialist things over there. What they don't have is French healthcare (about 75 per cent of the bill paid by the government , some exemptions) or Dutch healthcare (all private insurance but regulated, must provide basic package to all at fixed rate) or any other system which everyone can get as of right. And they never wonder why people who can well afford private healthcare and insurance here don't have it. Nor why so few do, considering that an employer can offset the premiums ( pay towards those instead of the payroll tax for the NHS).
Isn't Medicare socialist or is it not quite socialist?
Apologies for a tardy repy... living must be earned, no?
So, several recent polls reveal that 82% of Americans are satisfied with their insurance plans. Some estimates indicate 47 million people do not have insurance, but when all factors as to why are considered, the true number is closer to 5 to 7 million. The cost of the Obama proposal is estimated, evenly conservatively, to be north of 1 trillion dollars (with a "T") over the next 10 years. Someone said that works out to about two hundred thousand dollars per uninsured!
Now, as to Medicare and Midicaid... the reimbursement rate to doctors and hospitals drives them out of the system since it's not enough to cover the costs involved. Additionally, both systems are broke. So much for governement inability to manage such systems.
Dog catchers, garbage collection, water systems are all paid for by the citizens who use them and that at a local level, not national.
The U.S. Constitution clearly provides for the defense of the country, hence taxation for the army, etc.
Contd.
So, several recent polls reveal that 82% of Americans are satisfied with their insurance plans. Some estimates indicate 47 million people do not have insurance, but when all factors as to why are considered, the true number is closer to 5 to 7 million. The cost of the Obama proposal is estimated, evenly conservatively, to be north of 1 trillion dollars (with a "T") over the next 10 years. Someone said that works out to about two hundred thousand dollars per uninsured!
Now, as to Medicare and Midicaid... the reimbursement rate to doctors and hospitals drives them out of the system since it's not enough to cover the costs involved. Additionally, both systems are broke. So much for governement inability to manage such systems.
Dog catchers, garbage collection, water systems are all paid for by the citizens who use them and that at a local level, not national.
The U.S. Constitution clearly provides for the defense of the country, hence taxation for the army, etc.
Contd.
Contd.
The European model of government supplied health care is our greatest fear (other than possibly Switzerland whose population is 2/5ths that of the U.S.).. Let me ask, have you been happy with the NHS? We read of the discontent with waiting lines to see a specialist, none here in the U.S. Canada has a similar system and we have nearly as many Canadian doctors in the U.S. as does Canada since they don't wish to practice under the system. Same goes for the patients. We have an influx of Canadians who don't want to wait for 6 months to 2 years to get an MRI (I understand there are only 5 MRI units in all of Canada, however I could be wrong).
I personally know of two people who came to the U.S. to get immediate care that was either denied by Canadian bureaucrat or delayed to the point it was life-threatining. It's obvious that when health care is free it has to be rationed somehow... what better way than a government official determining whether or not you're worthy...
Personally, I've either worked for companies that supply 60 to 75% of the cost of insurance or paid for it myself. I know there's two sides to every situation, but the U.S. Constitution does not provide the right to health care (by the way, what's your tax rate?).
To provide good care for those that have no other option, U.S. law mandates that every hospital that receives any form of U.S. government funding (grants, loans or other) is required to accept anyone that comes to the Emergency Room, where the wait may be for a few hours but is never denied. No cost to the patient. It's absorbed by the hospital and medical personnel, for which the rest of us pay by virtue of higher rates and costs.... not the government through taxation.
The European model of government supplied health care is our greatest fear (other than possibly Switzerland whose population is 2/5ths that of the U.S.).. Let me ask, have you been happy with the NHS? We read of the discontent with waiting lines to see a specialist, none here in the U.S. Canada has a similar system and we have nearly as many Canadian doctors in the U.S. as does Canada since they don't wish to practice under the system. Same goes for the patients. We have an influx of Canadians who don't want to wait for 6 months to 2 years to get an MRI (I understand there are only 5 MRI units in all of Canada, however I could be wrong).
I personally know of two people who came to the U.S. to get immediate care that was either denied by Canadian bureaucrat or delayed to the point it was life-threatining. It's obvious that when health care is free it has to be rationed somehow... what better way than a government official determining whether or not you're worthy...
Personally, I've either worked for companies that supply 60 to 75% of the cost of insurance or paid for it myself. I know there's two sides to every situation, but the U.S. Constitution does not provide the right to health care (by the way, what's your tax rate?).
To provide good care for those that have no other option, U.S. law mandates that every hospital that receives any form of U.S. government funding (grants, loans or other) is required to accept anyone that comes to the Emergency Room, where the wait may be for a few hours but is never denied. No cost to the patient. It's absorbed by the hospital and medical personnel, for which the rest of us pay by virtue of higher rates and costs.... not the government through taxation.
Hi Clanad, sitting on the fence a bit here, we all have our moans about the NHS and yes direct taxation is greater, indeed there is a huge budget and no doubt a lot of it wasted. I take your points about waiting lists etc. For me though I just know that if I'm hit by a car in the street they'll scrape me up and fix me up no questions asked that goes for anyone from anywhere even if they don't know your name, that is the mark of civilisation. Is that true in the US? I know for example, not an accident obviously but my sister had a baby in Spain, when the time came the ambulance man wanted to check the medical insurance before he would take here to hospital, no paperwork no hospital! and they are in the EU FFS!
There are marked differences between European ways and those of the US. Over here, it would have caused a scandal if there had been privately funded public media statements (on radio or TV) at the height of an election for the highest office in the land which said the equivalent of "Obama, sounds a lot like Osama". This was so crass that (I would hope) every political party over here would have loudly condemned it, but I do not recall a murmur being heard over there. I personally know people (Americans) who have completely swallowed such rubbish as "All Muslims are taught to hate Americans" followed by an assertion that Obama is a Muslim. I am embarrassed/outraged on hearing such things and make my distaste known. Yes, socialism, socialist, etc. is as strongly reviled a concept as the acceptance is widespread of de rigueur pressure to pepper conversation with the words Lord, prayer, blessed, etc. Having a close knowledge of Muslim societies, I am struck by the similarity between theirs and that of the US. Throughout Muslim countries it is socially required to pay constant lip service to religion, including by prefixing sentences with "Bismilla" and scattering "Yah, Allah", etc. widely. People in both societies will tell you it is out of respect for their god, but no respect needs to be worn on the sleeve to make it valid - being seen is something else. In both types of societies there is a substantial proportion who will readily resort to violence to enforce their views. Executions are widely supported without question in both. The US voted for a change and it was probably the less polarised middle who moved over to the "other" side and swung the balance. Allegiance to the political right in the US is an article resembling faith (among the supporters) and they will use any means to discredit the other side. To his enormous credit, Obama did not allow his team to be dragged into mud-slinging, but it will carry on regardless.
Contd....
What I think is worrying for Americans is that, while big business has been a strong engine for generating wealth and the power that comes with it, business has far too much of that power available to serve their own interests. The poverty statistics for the US are shameful, the low quality of the education most people receive is scandalous - and one could go on. The average American is not at all well off, but he/she thinks it is the best state to be in because he/she knows no better and lives in perpetual fear of attack from "the enemy" (any of the many, including their armed-to-the-teeth neighbour), loss of a poorly paid and perhaps mind-numbingly awful job, but most of all.........illness. It is a fascinating country and its society makes an interesting exhibit to watch in contrast to our own (how many would swap, in either direction ?). But to me it is those who foam at the mouth that are most worrying. Given the present position it would be surprising indeed, but would it be so absolutely awful if they actually found the courage to embrace a universal health care system which simply ensured all who are ill can at all times get and afford the help they need, never mind which political party actually sets it up ? The money is there in plenty to pay for it - but, that would be at the expense of equipping the military for making war in far flung places to test the equipment and posture as a superpower.
What I think is worrying for Americans is that, while big business has been a strong engine for generating wealth and the power that comes with it, business has far too much of that power available to serve their own interests. The poverty statistics for the US are shameful, the low quality of the education most people receive is scandalous - and one could go on. The average American is not at all well off, but he/she thinks it is the best state to be in because he/she knows no better and lives in perpetual fear of attack from "the enemy" (any of the many, including their armed-to-the-teeth neighbour), loss of a poorly paid and perhaps mind-numbingly awful job, but most of all.........illness. It is a fascinating country and its society makes an interesting exhibit to watch in contrast to our own (how many would swap, in either direction ?). But to me it is those who foam at the mouth that are most worrying. Given the present position it would be surprising indeed, but would it be so absolutely awful if they actually found the courage to embrace a universal health care system which simply ensured all who are ill can at all times get and afford the help they need, never mind which political party actually sets it up ? The money is there in plenty to pay for it - but, that would be at the expense of equipping the military for making war in far flung places to test the equipment and posture as a superpower.
Clanad, Canada sounds in a bad way and perhaps poorly administered. The NHS has improved vastly in the last few years. France was judged by the WHO to have the best healthcare, the US was well down their list.
Here's a personal example :None of my family has ever had private health insurance or private healthcare here, Neither did my parents nor do my inlaws have it. All of us are capitalists in the old-fashioned sense, My father was a self-made man. We've never voted Labour in our lives. The choice is not one of socialist principles.We don't have socialist principles! .
When our daughter was taken ill at university, the college sent for an (NHS) ambulance, she went to the (NHS) hospital, was seen and attended to by specialists , was out in 4 days. No complaints . The only direct cost to us was her mother took a helicopter to fly to the bedside. Now, what kind of family would, and can afford, to happily charter a personal helicopter yet happily uses the NHS if the NHS is not to be trusted? Our daughter could have used the private section of the NHS hospital or gone to some private hospital, and we could have paid, but there was no benefit . (other than she'd have her own private internet connection'!) certainly no medical one.
For all that, France's system is adjudged to be better.It may very well be still.( I keep a second home in Antibes and have had some experience of French healthcare) But nobody is suggesting a US NHS, so why do you ask?
Here's a personal example :None of my family has ever had private health insurance or private healthcare here, Neither did my parents nor do my inlaws have it. All of us are capitalists in the old-fashioned sense, My father was a self-made man. We've never voted Labour in our lives. The choice is not one of socialist principles.We don't have socialist principles! .
When our daughter was taken ill at university, the college sent for an (NHS) ambulance, she went to the (NHS) hospital, was seen and attended to by specialists , was out in 4 days. No complaints . The only direct cost to us was her mother took a helicopter to fly to the bedside. Now, what kind of family would, and can afford, to happily charter a personal helicopter yet happily uses the NHS if the NHS is not to be trusted? Our daughter could have used the private section of the NHS hospital or gone to some private hospital, and we could have paid, but there was no benefit . (other than she'd have her own private internet connection'!) certainly no medical one.
For all that, France's system is adjudged to be better.It may very well be still.( I keep a second home in Antibes and have had some experience of French healthcare) But nobody is suggesting a US NHS, so why do you ask?
That's the problem, fred... our newly elected (7 months) President is insistent on installing a single payer (read government administered) health care system.
The major problem in comparing any successes with your NHS and any attempt at such here is the sheer size of the country and populace. We read consistently that your experience as described is the anomaly. I'm in no posiiton to judge, but read reports that, similar to Canada, the NHS system is fine if you're young and healthy. It does stand to reason that any totally free system will soon be overwheomed by demand unless that demand is rationed.
One portion of the porposed bill suggests exactly that ...when a person reaches the age of 65. At that point, longevity is a counterpoint to any proposed treatment. In fact, "end of life" counselling twice a year after age 65 is paid for by the government. That serms only a short step to mandated euthanasia and I'm no conspriacy theorist...
Just this evening a British commentator (believe his name is Daniel Hannan) explained that the 1.5 million workers, especially administrators who outnumber the health care professionals in Britain is the World's third largest employer.
Heck, recently the government tried a program called "Cash for Clunkers" to entice people to trade in their old, inifficient cars for new models. The program offered $4500 in addition to dealer offers to promote the program. The program was bankrolled by, who else? The government to the tune of 1 Billion dollars. it was badly administered, didn't promote the selling of American made cars and generally fell on its face. How are they then going to administer a 1.5 Trillion dollar health care system? Truly disconcerting....
The major problem in comparing any successes with your NHS and any attempt at such here is the sheer size of the country and populace. We read consistently that your experience as described is the anomaly. I'm in no posiiton to judge, but read reports that, similar to Canada, the NHS system is fine if you're young and healthy. It does stand to reason that any totally free system will soon be overwheomed by demand unless that demand is rationed.
One portion of the porposed bill suggests exactly that ...when a person reaches the age of 65. At that point, longevity is a counterpoint to any proposed treatment. In fact, "end of life" counselling twice a year after age 65 is paid for by the government. That serms only a short step to mandated euthanasia and I'm no conspriacy theorist...
Just this evening a British commentator (believe his name is Daniel Hannan) explained that the 1.5 million workers, especially administrators who outnumber the health care professionals in Britain is the World's third largest employer.
Heck, recently the government tried a program called "Cash for Clunkers" to entice people to trade in their old, inifficient cars for new models. The program offered $4500 in addition to dealer offers to promote the program. The program was bankrolled by, who else? The government to the tune of 1 Billion dollars. it was badly administered, didn't promote the selling of American made cars and generally fell on its face. How are they then going to administer a 1.5 Trillion dollar health care system? Truly disconcerting....
My mother lived to be 92. She spent the greater part of the last year in an NHS geriatric hospital (her choice, of course). Nobody offered her end of life counselling (whatever that is. Never heard of it) ! What is all this ? I expect you'll find that life expectancy in the US is lower than in those supposed dystopia that have national healthcare [ e.g CIA estimate 2008 has UK life expectancy for each sex a year less than the UK's] Perhaps the idea of the end of life counselling is to persuade people to die younger so as to keep it that way LOL Are your opposing polticians trying to persuade people that healthcare means that people will be killed off before they get too old?
Typo. " Has US life expectancy...."
PS Clanad,our cash for clunkers scheme offers a straight �1,000 from the taxpayer to the price of a new car plus the dealer to add another �1000 off as discount, total �2000 a car. No estimates of scrap value,, no difference between models or makes, just straight �2000 total off .. 12.000 cars so scrapped so far cost taxpayer �12, 000,000 (say $20 million or so Rate is �1 = $1.6 ) No idea why your scheme is so complicated or costs so much.
PS Clanad,our cash for clunkers scheme offers a straight �1,000 from the taxpayer to the price of a new car plus the dealer to add another �1000 off as discount, total �2000 a car. No estimates of scrap value,, no difference between models or makes, just straight �2000 total off .. 12.000 cars so scrapped so far cost taxpayer �12, 000,000 (say $20 million or so Rate is �1 = $1.6 ) No idea why your scheme is so complicated or costs so much.
To me there is something profoundly disturbing about people being afraid of the prospect of a healthcare system that deliberately takes its control from insurance and pharmaceutical companies, not to mention politicians who receive lobby funds to ensure these interests keep their fingers in the pie. Also frightening is the ability of these parties to excite "the masses" against public control of possibly the single most important protection of our individual wellbeing with pseudo-religious fervour. When you then consider that the same public is poorly served in another (close second ?) important sphere in their lives, education, then you both have the answer and a doubling of astonishment as to why and how these people so misconstrue their own best interests. The phrase of "Only in America" really fits here because there seems to be nowhere else this might happen (can you suggest anywhere that has/would ?). The hungry may well destroy food stocks next on the principle that having food available is going to make it more expensive, not to mention it leading to people being starved to death.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank12 mins ago
You Mightn't Be Able To Help Here
ChatterBank13 mins ago
How it Works34 mins ago
