INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Adam on July 31, 2013, 02:52:31 PM
-
and this american guy (member of the public) stood up to speak, saying how terrible healthcare was in the US and how we should fight for our NHS
made me think of this site and some of you guys haha :laugh:
Now start your political arguments...
/ Enter Rage in 3... 2... 1...
:tickle:
-
Faggot.
:laugh:
-
Americans by default already have healthcare. They have to wait until it is so bad, and then go to the Emergency Room.
Where there will be no charge.
When I worked our employer offered healthcare, but as a lot of taxes were already taken out of their paychecks, most people opted out of not having yet more money taken out for healthcare.
And then even if you do have healthcare you have to pay a premium. for each doctor visit, because your health plan doesn't cover 100% of the total cost
-
The American already lives in the UK, doesn't he? Your sample is biased.
What is your argument?
-
Although I hate the state, I like almost free healthcare :angel:
-
Free healthcare is only worth it if it's good.
People really need to keep hold of the NHS and fight for it, alright. I'll definitely need it whenever I move out of here.
-
and this american guy (member of the public) stood up to speak, saying how terrible healthcare was in the US and how we should fight for our NHS
made me think of this site and some of you guys haha :laugh:
Now start your political arguments...
/ Enter Rage in 3... 2... 1...
:tickle:
That's what NHS meetings need, more septic input. :zoinks:
-
I will admit that my health insurance is great. As a retired state employee who is not eligible for Medicare (yet - I will get it when I'm 65 since PA gets it), the state pays about 5 times what I pay for my premium. The state recently privatized management of our insurance program and from what I understand BlueCross/BlueShield cannot raise premiums or cut coverage for the term of the contract, 5 years.
I have a reasonable payment when I see a doctor ($20 for my primary care physician and $30 for a specialist). My eye visits are covered because of my diabetes and the lens implants from cataract surgeries (regular, ordinary visits would not be). Most lab tests and shots are free as are my mammograms and gynecological wellness visits.
Most of my prescriptions are either free (diabetes related) or very inexpensive (less than $10 each).
The only reason I can think of for the State offering such good coverage is that they'd have to pay for it one way (employer premiums) or the other (no insurance and lots of health problems, ER visits, etc.)
-
Although I hate the state, I like almost free healthcare :angel:
Isn't it supported through taxes?
-
Although I hate the state, I like almost free healthcare :angel:
Isn't it supported through taxes?
It's free. Free to the people and free for their use. Exactly like public schools in the United States. Do Americans have the viewpoint of paying for their education, or do they think it's free and their basic human right?
-
Although I hate the state, I like almost free healthcare :angel:
Isn't it supported through taxes?
It's free. Free to the people and free for their use. Exactly like public schools in the United States. Do Americans have the viewpoint of paying for their education, or do they think it's free and their basic human right?
It's funny you should mention that. In my experience, many Americans will fight tooth and nail to prevent their property taxes from going up. We know that we pay for it, every April 15. :thumbup: That doesn't mean that I think that we should deny education to any child.
-
Although I hate the state, I like almost free healthcare :angel:
Isn't it supported through taxes?
It's free. Free to the people and free for their use. Exactly like public schools in the United States. Do Americans have the viewpoint of paying for their education, or do they think it's free and their basic human right?
It's funny you should mention that. In my experience, many Americans will fight tooth and nail to prevent their property taxes from going up. We know that we pay for it, every April 15. :thumbup: That doesn't mean that I think that we should deny education to any child.
Yeah, everyone knows they pay for it. That was a good, frank response. :thumbup:
-
Although I hate the state, I like almost free healthcare :angel:
Isn't it supported through taxes?
It's free. Free to the people and free for their use. Exactly like public schools in the United States. Do Americans have the viewpoint of paying for their education, or do they think it's free and their basic human right?
It's funny you should mention that. In my experience, many Americans will fight tooth and nail to prevent their property taxes from going up. We know that we pay for it, every April 15. :thumbup: That doesn't mean that I think that we should deny education to any child.
Yeah, everyone knows they pay for it. That was a good, frank response. :thumbup:
Thank you. :)
-
Exactly like public schools in the United States. Do Americans have the viewpoint of paying for their education, or do they think it's free and their basic human right?
I guess this is a pretty good analogy. I think most people think healthcare to some extent is free, they can just end up in the emergency room for treatment. The problem is preventative care is more cost effective than say when you let a disease get out of control requiring a visit to the ER. Most people, (especially Conservatives) have a viewpoint of "pick yourself up by the bootstraps" kind of mentality which would be fine, but what if you don't have any boots to pick yourself up from?
since most of these people are of the flock of going to church. Have you ever attended a church service? most of it is nothing more than a bunch of bullshit that has nothing to with jesus at all. Preachers actually preach its the persons responsibility to get themselves the help they need even if they don't have it. and if they don't have it, the vicious cycle continues. both of their mindset and the people who need the help ending up in the ER
I still haven't seen Obama care at all. So, even if I have to pay for it I will because I haven't been to a Doctor since I was a teenager. I'm 33 now and I'd like to know if this hotrod is running on empty, half full or full
:santa:
-
A lot of people don't wait until they have an emergency, and they shouldn't. Though that's a problem too; emergency rooms overwhelmed with non-emergencies because people can't afford to see a doctor.
-
If your emergency rooms are anything like ours, then there should be viable alternatives for people who shouldn't wait until the emergency. ERs seldom do more than patch up, they send you to specialists and the like.
-
Emergency rooms can't send people away. Of course people who don't have real emergencies might sit a few hours in the waiting room, if there are real emergencies taking priority. Hospitals aren't the only alternative though. There's also free/inexpensive state funded health centers everywhere, for people to take children for check-ups and immunizations. Not sure how those work for adults, except for family planning. Have heard of free clinics for adults, but don't know how common they are.
-
The NHS was born in 1948. It's founding principals:
* that it meet the needs of everyone
* that it be free at the point of delivery
* that it be based on clinical need, not ability to pay
"It is not free though, as it is supported through taxes" I have heard this a lot. It is funded by taxes but has become so integrated in our society we see it as an absolute necessity. A bit like The Fire Service, or Education.
It is an absolute essential service to keep the public healthy. We live on a small island and within close proximity to each other, which makes public health important for all of us, even visitors. Yes, back in 1948 these services were extended to visitors.
It is far from perfect. It requires more than an overhaul. It is, however, worth fighting for. Privatization is the worst thing that could happen. We need to stick to it's founding principals.
-
Why is privatising it a good idea, again?
Your post service getting privatised is bad enough.
-
Who are you addressing, Shleed?
-
Who are you addressing, Shleed?
I think Bodie.
-
Emergency rooms are NOT free generally they are very over priced if you have insurance. I have gotten bills for over $5000 from them on multiple occasions which are also sent to our insurance and we pay a copay of I think it's $125 for emergency room visits. If you don't have insurance you alone get the bill they may write it off eventually but they will try and collect
-
and this american guy (member of the public) stood up to speak, saying how terrible healthcare was in the US and how we should fight for our NHS
made me think of this site and some of you guys haha :laugh:
Now start your political arguments...
/ Enter Rage in 3... 2... 1...
:tickle:
That's what NHS meetings need, more septic input. :zoinks:
lol
-
Although I hate the state, I like almost free healthcare :angel:
Isn't it supported through taxes?
We've had this discussion in another thread already
It's still "free healthcare"
We know it's paid for by taxes - we're not stupid
-
Although I hate the state, I like almost free healthcare :angel:
Isn't it supported through taxes?
We've had this discussion in another thread already
It's still "free healthcare"
We know it's paid for by taxes - we're not stupid
I was responding to Lit. :P
-
Why is privatising it a good idea, again?
Your post service getting privatised is bad enough.
That#s Tories for you
They'd privatise their own mother if the price was right
The only things they dont privatise are the things that should be privatised - ie the royal family and funerals for fucking witches
We had this in the 80s and now they're back, we've got Round Two
Conservatives are the scum of the earth
-
Although I hate the state, I like almost free healthcare :angel:
Isn't it supported through taxes?
We've had this discussion in another thread already
It's still "free healthcare"
We know it's paid for by taxes - we're not stupid
I was responding to Lit. :P
I know you were
I din't mean "we" as in you and me - i meant on the forum in general. ie it's an "argument" that has come up before and is kinda pointless
-
Who are you addressing, Shleed?
I think Bodie.
I don't think privatization is a good thing!
-
After the revolution, the Glorious Leader of the Great Secular Republic will re-nationalise all public services :celebrate:
-
I get the idea that the tories sit there and think "hmmm,what can we privatize next?"
They get it so wrong. I remember when they privatized screws (prison guards) ... now that was a major fuck up!
-
Although I hate the state, I like almost free healthcare :angel:
Isn't it supported through taxes?
We've had this discussion in another thread already
It's still "free healthcare"
We know it's paid for by taxes - we're not stupid
I was responding to Lit. :P
I know you were
I din't mean "we" as in you and me - i meant on the forum in general. ie it's an "argument" that has come up before and is kinda pointless
Yes and no. You get aspects of it that are the same, such as discussing who actually pays for it. There are others that change depending on the specifics of the system.
The poor in America have limited access to health care, while they may have more options in the UK. On the other hand, your system may have some taxpayers subsidizing the bad habits of other members of society. Your taxes don't change depending on whether your lifestyle gives you a higher or lower risk of certain health problems, correct? Is that better or worse than the American system?
If health care is a basic human right, shouldn't the government provide it? On the other hand, the government doesn't provide food or shelter except to the poor.
I know that you know that the system is paid for by taxes, but I don't know if you've thought about all of the ramifications of that system. I think that there are some aspects of universal health care that are worth looking into.
-
Who are you addressing, Shleed?
I think Bodie.
I don't think privatization is a good thing!
I was meaning more on why The Tories would do such measures when most people need the NHS. It's crazy. Not trying to say you agree with it or not.
-
Who are you addressing, Shleed?
I think Bodie.
I don't think privatization is a good thing!
I was meaning more on why The Tories would do such measures when most people need the NHS. It's crazy. Not trying to say you agree with it or not.
I think they see it as a way to make a profit. Once the nhs has to make a profit all the founding principles will be down the drain.
-
Catching up on the threads... :P
What is happening with the NHS? I can't be bothered to google it at the moment.
-
Catching up on the threads... :P
What is happening with the NHS? I can't be bothered to google it at the moment.
They are making people poorly again :P
-
The fucking cunt Tories are privatizing it
They're chiding fish the a&e at my local girl as well
-
It's a global movement of the very rich. Fuck capitalism.
Careful, you guys. Next it'll be prisons.
-
:agreed:
the tories privatise everything here
they did it last time (under thatcher) and theyre selling off the rest now theyre back
fucking evil scum of the earth
-
You must murder them! :arrr:
-
Vote them out of the office is probably easier.
-
I try but I only have one vote :(
-
Your taxes don't change depending on whether your lifestyle gives you a higher or lower risk of certain health problems, correct? Is that better or worse than the American system?
I think far better. It would be morally wrong IMO, to charge someone with a higher risk of developing cancer, heart disease, etc. higher taxes.
-
Vote them out of the office is probably easier.
Nah, I say people should vote directly on legislation. Maybe not get rid of representation altogether, but of course the voice of the people must be first and last. Reps might behave better if they knew their job was to serve us, instead of to hold power over us.
-
Vote them out of the office is probably easier.
Nah, I say people should vote directly on legislation. Maybe not get rid of representation altogether, but of course the voice of the people must be first and last. Reps might behave better if they knew their job was to serve us, instead of to hold power over us.
In theory, that would be a good idea. In Real Life (TM), however, people are morons who'd be easily swayed if there were difficult and unpopular decisions to be made. People should *never* be allowed to vote on legislation directly.
It's the big problem with democracy. People are morons and the majority should not be allowed to vote on anything more complex than the grocery list, and even that can prove to be too difficult for some.
-
:agreed:
-
Vote them out of the office is probably easier.
Nah, I say people should vote directly on legislation. Maybe not get rid of representation altogether, but of course the voice of the people must be first and last. Reps might behave better if they knew their job was to serve us, instead of to hold power over us.
In theory, that would be a good idea. In Real Life (TM), however, people are morons who'd be easily swayed if there were difficult and unpopular decisions to be made. People should *never* be allowed to vote on legislation directly.
It's the big problem with democracy. People are morons and the majority should not be allowed to vote on anything more complex than the grocery list, and even that can prove to be too difficult for some.
The leaders, though, are often morons too and not seldom psychopaths.
-
It's a tough thing to sort out when the majority, including the politicians, are stupid as fuck.
I don't think it can be done perfectly without some form of mind control.
-
Either you accept the democratic principle or you don't. I would like you to reexamine your evidence, however. What exactly is it?
-
I think most people are stupid because they are brainwashed. Many of my "friends" in school were more intelligent at the age of 10 then they are as adults. Not that they ever were geniuses, though.
-
Either you accept the democratic principle or you don't. I would like you to reexamine your evidence, however. What exactly is it?
People voted this man into office:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_y3HIqDCiYw/TZieIZEpy4I/AAAAAAAABuo/zRF6eGipi9k/s400/george-w-bush.jpg)
I rest my case. :M
-
Either you accept the democratic principle or you don't. I would like you to reexamine your evidence, however. What exactly is it?
People voted this man into office:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_y3HIqDCiYw/TZieIZEpy4I/AAAAAAAABuo/zRF6eGipi9k/s400/george-w-bush.jpg)
I rest my case. :M
George Bush is the perfect example. He might have beaten a marionette like Al Gore (though thanks to the supreme court we'll never know the truth of the matter), as well as John Kerry, who was basically the Democratic Party's Mitt Romney. The contest was over who was the lesser of two evils, a contest which is predicated upon the dominance of a pair of incredibly well-funded bureaucracies whose sole duty is to get people into office. These financial giants can not only outspend any third party challenger, but they also work together to create rules making it nearly impossible for third parties to break in, or even to hold whatever ground they gain. In addition, they each reserve the right to draw district maps that guarantee their incumbents a certain level of job security. Bush is still, after five years, widely regarded as the worst president in United States history, yet his policies remain in place, held there by a man whose only campaign promise was to change them. Do you really think that if his policies were truly subjected to a referendum, as the Democrats claimed they were, that any of them would still be law? Seventy percent of Americans now think that the Patriot Act was a bad idea. But it's still not going anywhere. The near-impossibility of third parties gaining and keeping name-recognition they can bank on ensures that American representatives suffer almost no accountability.
Make no mistake, George Bush made a handful of people very very rich, and Obama is doing the precise same thing. If these two have made a lot of other people very very poor, it wasn't because of those people's stupidity, but for the lack of a competitive, genuine alternative. The election rules in this country are so arcane, that for most third parties, managing to get on the ballot at all is seen as a major victory. It eats up most of their funds, and there is nothing left over for airtime. If representative democracy seems to have failed in America, it isn't because the democratic principle doesn't work.
-
It's not just in America. In Sweden we have 8 parties in the parliament but in principle there are two "blocks" of parties, the "red" or the "blue" that will always have the power (although the "blue" block would be considered red too in the US).
I still say that, apart from the charade with "representative" "democracy", people are still more brainwashed by society than genuinely stupid.
-
Either you accept the democratic principle or you don't. I would like you to reexamine your evidence, however. What exactly is it?
People voted this man into office:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_y3HIqDCiYw/TZieIZEpy4I/AAAAAAAABuo/zRF6eGipi9k/s400/george-w-bush.jpg)
I rest my case. :M
George Bush is the perfect example. He might have beaten a marionette like Al Gore (though thanks to the supreme court we'll never know the truth of the matter), as well as John Kerry, who was basically the Democratic Party's Mitt Romney. The contest was over who was the lesser of two evils, a contest which is predicated upon the dominance of a pair of incredibly well-funded bureaucracies whose sole duty is to get people into office. These financial giants can not only outspend any third party challenger, but they also work together to create rules making it nearly impossible for third parties to break in, or even to hold whatever ground they gain. In addition, they each reserve the right to draw district maps that guarantee their incumbents a certain level of job security. Bush is still, after five years, widely regarded as the worst president in United States history, yet his policies remain in place, held there by a man whose only campaign promise was to change them. Do you really think that if his policies were truly subjected to a referendum, as the Democrats claimed they were, that any of them would still be law? Seventy percent of Americans now think that the Patriot Act was a bad idea. But it's still not going anywhere. The near-impossibility of third parties gaining and keeping name-recognition they can bank on ensures that American representatives suffer almost no accountability.
Make no mistake, George Bush made a handful of people very very rich, and Obama is doing the precise same thing. If these two have made a lot of other people very very poor, it wasn't because of those people's stupidity, but for the lack of a competitive, genuine alternative. The election rules in this country are so arcane, that for most third parties, managing to get on the ballot at all is seen as a major victory. It eats up most of their funds, and there is nothing left over for airtime. If representative democracy seems to have failed in America, it isn't because the democratic principle doesn't work.
I love it how you get all defensive. :P
But I actually had a serious point to make here, which had nothing to do with your country or its indirectly elected leaders. The point is this:
People, in general, are uneducated morons lacking even the basics necessary to make educated decisions about anything. I could just as well have illustrated my earlier post with our prime minister, or just about anyone, but it's safe to say that Bush is better known. He is also a prime example of an idiot having been elected into office.
A number of years ago there was a public referendum in Sweden about whether or not to keep the nuclear power plants in the country, I think 12 at the time. It was a hugely populistic vote in just about every way, happening as a direct result of the Harrisburg incident in the US, but for some reason the powers that be carried it through every step of the way.
Lobbyists pulled the public opinion back and forth and the people were polarised into roughly two camps, not three, debating about nuclear power based on fear and fiction, but eventually the vote was carried through and the country is still recovering from it.
The notion of the people making an informed decision about a specialised technical matter is almost as bizarre as the idea of politicians making it. But this is what democracy is; people making decisions about matters that are far beyond their education or reasoning capabilities.
Or electing equally ill-informed politicians who then base their decisions not on any factual merits but on how they affect their jobs.
-
That's why an anarchy with enlightened citizens is absolutely necessary! :viking:
-
Well, anarchy fails for more reasons than just that.
-
I try but I only have one vote :(
Electoral fraud! :arrr: :P
Either you accept the democratic principle or you don't. I would like you to reexamine your evidence, however. What exactly is it?
People voted this man into office:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_y3HIqDCiYw/TZieIZEpy4I/AAAAAAAABuo/zRF6eGipi9k/s400/george-w-bush.jpg)
I rest my case. :M
The second time we did, when he was the incumbent. The first time, Al Gore won the popular vote. :M
It's not just in America. In Sweden we have 8 parties in the parliament but in principle there are two "blocks" of parties, the "red" or the "blue" that will always have the power (although the "blue" block would be considered red too in the US).
I still say that, apart from the charade with "representative" "democracy", people are still more brainwashed by society than genuinely stupid.
In the US, red is Republican (conservative) and blue is Democrat (liberal). Are you saying that all of your legislators are Republicans? :zombiefuck:
-
Oh, no, red is socialist in Sweden. Blue is conservative/liberal.
-
I fail to see how it takes specialized knowledge to ask basic questions about nuclear plants like
1. What is the fuel source, and what happens to the fuel after it has been used?
2. How likely is it that someone at the plant will make a mistake?
3. What are the consequences of such a mistake?
But that's just one topic. Capitalism doesn't make it easy to build a broadly educated population, with an effective and ethical journalistic culture, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.
-
I fail to see how it takes specialized knowledge to ask basic questions about nuclear plants like
1. What is the fuel source, and what happens to the fuel after it has been used?
2. How likely is it that someone at the plant will make a mistake?
3. What are the consequences of such a mistake?
But that's just one topic. Capitalism doesn't make it easy to build a broadly educated population, with an effective and ethical journalistic culture, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.
This already has the discussion dumbed down to a level where it is meaningless. 1 is already mostly beside the point, 2 is impossible to answer and 3 is isolated speculation.
You cannot educate everyone because the capacity for learning isn't always there. And "ethical journalistic culture" is an oxymoron in more ways than one.
-
Always asks me how democrats are blue and republicans are red. That's just fucking wrong!
-
I believe it is because the human brain functions best when only given two options.