Don't you mean, "Do I hope Obama proves America can thrive under socialism?"
Well, it hasn't worked too well anywhere else, so, uh, no - I guess not.
Printable View
Don't you mean, "Do I hope Obama proves America can thrive under socialism?"
Well, it hasn't worked too well anywhere else, so, uh, no - I guess not.
What you'll end up with is social democracy, at best. Which works well enough.
I'm only saying that because I'm in what's generally run by social democrats, and it does all right.
The taxes are higher but less people have to sleep on the streets, or die cos they lack health insurance, and fun stuff like that.
America is destined to crash and burn anyways. (Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.)
If Obama succeeds in making the United States a little less hegemonistic and more concerned with the welfare of its own citizens that would be a winner in my eyes. Far too much of the American taxpayers money is going to prop up foreign countries.:yup:
More on this when I've got the time, Snee, but, as usual, you've gotten to the crux of the matter for me.
Misapprehension and a wee bit of an overstatement, Ian.
Again, I'll expand, but it'll have to be later.
Can't let you get away without backing that up; you're right about the history, of course, but selling us short into the bargain.
He's smart enough not to admit it, but his ideas are socialist, absolutely.
Less hegemonistic?
I'll go along with that - it's a lot less expensive.
Bush and company burned America to the ground, they ruin millions of lives, what could Obama do to screw it up more? I think Bush did it already.
Obviously capitalism under Bush didn't work did it? Millions loosing their houses, millions loosing their jobs, gosh I think republicans really did it this time.
Lack of oversight in the financial system, corruption runned rampant with the republican administratio, congress and the senate, bravo I hope Obama can change the way America has been going for the last eight years, a retard drove this beautiful country to the ground.
We have more homeless than ever, two wars that had nothing to do with America's security and a huge deficit that will screw future generations.
Stop the socialist crying already. it is getting old.
:blink:
Seriously :blink:
EDit: And just to hammer the point aaall the way home.
-=-=-
Public education, that's something you may want to funnel some of those new tax dollars into, J2.
I was in an european country 2 years ago and they didn't have lots of medicines we have here.
Here in the US, if you have to go for an operation, they will do it right away, in Europe where social medicine is free, they have to wait years sometimes, and sometimes they die waiting.
You're terribly dense, or a really obvious troll, you know.
Europe isn't one nation, and most of the countries that had better overall health care standards in 2000 than the US already, were european. And this was before Bush raped the bank to start a couple of wars and redecorate Iraq.
I'm sure Bosnia or whatever was bad, but it wasn't all of europe.
And nor is all of europe social democrat.
No I am not a troll I am just telling you, thank you for clarifying that Europe is not one country, did you get that on a dictionary?
And I am talking about Spain, France, germany etc etc, and all those countries in the european union, their health care will never be able to compare to the one in the United States, with or without Bush.
Knowing stuff like how you don't have a clue about Europe probably comes from me living there, and, you know, not having had to wait years for medicine which according to you I couldn't possibly have taken when I needed it.
From WHO, average overall health care standards in 2000, one (1) being the best:
1. France
7. Spain
25. Germany
39. USA
By the sound of it they were far better then, and probably not much worse (compared to how they were then) now.
I have relatives who live in Ohio. Since they retired through ill health treatment has left them with no monetary reserves. The health service in the UK is free to all. I have not heard of anyone dying because they were refused long term beneficial treatment. There are people who have been refused palliative medicines that are too costly. Private medicine is available if you want it. We have the best of both worlds.:)
There's no point trying to argue with someone like that pentomato. (Read my sig). A debate where one of the parties observes absolutely no respect for the other, and sees itself as far superior, is doomed from the outset.
For the record, you raise relevant and real issues. Socialist health care, especially where I live, is a complete and aberrant failure of epic proportions. It is not uncommon for people to go without treatment, due to wait times, and to die in the process as well.
The state's generally highly complex bureaucratic machine, as Kafka so eloquently exemplifies in more than one of his works, is more often than not ineffective and unnecessary.
England is not a good example when one talks of the European Union's failed socialist health care systems. I'm sure, moreover, that you weren't referring to it pentomato.
Nope, I was refering to Spain, their healthcare if I am not mistaken is the same as the rest of Europe, I was there two eyars ago and I had to take my daugther to the hospital because of asthma, their care can't compare to what she gets in the US, of course I had to pay around $600, much less of what I would pay here.
The pharmacies there do not have a clue about what a cough night syrup is, and other medicines you need they don't have them either, this was my experience anyway.
Of course a pump for asthma such as ventolin ( rescue inhaler) there costs 50 euros, here around $150, but I prefer the system here.
There are many more things about it, for example, there you can't ask questions, they look at you like why are you asking, or you ask to much, here in the US that's my right, as it is my right to enter the emergency room with my daugther, there they don't let you.
I lived in Spain for a bunch of years, do not patronize me with the average overallhealth care. What I see is that europeans with money come to the Us for care.
Someone that I love very much had blood clots in her brain, they operated her, she didn't come out ok, she can't move her right side in her whole body, they don't have rehabilitation for that there, here she woulnd't leave the rehab place, till her right side would be ok again.
I have seeing people dying because they would have heart attacks or other things, and they would have to wait years for an operation, the wonderful socialized medicine killed them.
Here if you need your tonzils removed, they do it the week after, there you have to wait years, till your number comes up. enough said
You know for every horror story one comes up with about social medicine the same examples can be found in our system and vice versa. People with insurance here are denied treatment by their insurance companies all the time. Choice here comes with ability to pay. Waiting times are shorter here because so many can't afford to be in the queue and go untreated. There is no difference in emergency waiting times.
I see Americans going to other countries for operations because it's cheaper and the quality is equal or in some cases better. I read some insurance companies even offer to pay travel cost because it saves them money.
The USA comes so far down the list not because of the standard of treatment but because of the limited access.
Right, but in standard of treatment, I'll tell you right out of the bat, socialist care is bollocks.
We have too many doctors, the state hospitals are flooded with them (hello public debt), they are careless and rude to patients, patients have to wait sometimes years, unless, of course, you have a way of getting ahead in the queue (knowing someone, who knows someone, who was flirted with by someone in a bar one night, who is the cousin of the man in charge of door-keeping someone else's neighbor's chihuahua), not to mention that the system isn't free, per se. It is cheaper, definitely not free. I got "treated" for my injured knee, and it still hurts 3 months later. I doubt they actually diagnosed the issue properly, even after 2 radiograms taken.
I know there is a lot of true to that, but in this country even medicaid, the federal and state health insurance is great, and any hospital or clinic that receives federal dollars, by law they have to help you any way.
Even pharmaceutical companies, they help with medicines.
American's go to third world countries for operations tha's true, but sometimes they get back dead or with other deseases., the funny one is sometimes they go to third world countries for plastic surgery and when they get back, they have to be fix here.
The world should hope he succeeds, because when America's economy goes to the shitter, the worlds economy will follow.
So what your saying is that in government run health systems doctors are paid a salary.
Except in rare circumstances I think you'll find that goes with any government employee
Unless private practice is illegal then I don't know just what your point is supposed to be.
Well I haven't got a bad word to say about the free Health Service in the UK. They've always been there when I've needed them throughout my life, and I've never had cause for complaint.
In my opinion the press paints a bleaker picture than the real state of affairs.
In the National Health Service doctors can also run a private practice along with their commitment to the NHS. Ten years ago I went for an Angiogram at an NHS hospital. The person sitting next to me was getting his done privately. He, like me was informed he needed a bypass. He got his bypass two months later in an NHS hospital. I got my treble bypass in the same hospital five months later. Both operations were done by the same surgeon. So if you are willing to pay money you can jump the queue. The story of life.:lol:
"patronize"?
Yeah, I guess that's one way to call quoting statistics composed by health care professionals and investigators.
Yeah, and some americans go to private clinics abroad. As a statement, saying that some people go to the US for health care doesn't prove all that much. Private clinics with enough funding are generally better than the basic health care you get, anywhere.Quote:
What I see is that europeans with money come to the Us for care.
Some treatments aren't legal everywhere, either, and some are done a lot more in certain countries. Different kinds of elective surgery seem to be an american speciality, for instance.
I've never been to Spain, or had a stroke in Spain, but funnily enough, I've a hard time believing your personal experiences better represent the state of things than what aforementioned investigators said.Quote:
Someone that I love very much had blood clots in her brain, they operated her, she didn't come out ok, she can't move her right side in her whole body, they don't have rehabilitation for that there, here she woulnd't leave the rehab place, till her right side would be ok again.
Espicially considering that my country was rated a fair few places below Spain (although quite a bit over the US) and stroke-victims, or anyone else really needing it, for that matter, being denied physiotherapy doesn't really match my experiences.
Tying in with someone else said, you'll have to look far for a system where there are no queues whatsoever in health care. The only way to get around that is to pay more than the others.Quote:
I have seeing people dying because they would have heart attacks or other things, and they would have to wait years for an operation, the wonderful socialized medicine killed them.
Here if you need your tonzils removed, they do it the week after, there you have to wait years, till your number comes up. enough said
Some people do end up waiting for a bit, if their conditions aren't life threatening and there's a backlog of emergencies. That's not going to be any different in the US, though. Oh, except that:
...Sweet. I'd do great, the unemployed among my pals in the US, though, wouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
And no, we don't have to wait years to have our tonsils removed.
Basically, our system, which I suppose is somewhat like the british, means that everyone is entitled to a certain standard of care, no matter their means. Beyond that, it's then possible to get better care if you pay for it.
In the end, the care available for everyone here is decent and they'll do what they can to make sure you survive and are able to get back up, as opposed to "you can't pay, lulz. You can't have that transplant".
Call me crazy, but I'd rather have our system any day of the week.
What's up with your unemployed friends in the USA?
Have you ever lived in the USA? If you didn't this conversation is over, because you don't have a clue how life in the US is, I have lived in both places, so I can tell you wich one is better when it comes to healthcare, you can't.
Have a nice day
This is where the problem in the statement made by Limbaugh lies.
It's not that one thinks he will fail, which is a very legitimate concern. It's people hoping he fails.
If he proves America can thrive under socialism, why would it matter how it worked out elsewhere?
History does indeed repeat itself.
History tells us socialism is a half-measure in practice, and allows those who administer it to feel "real good" about their efforts, while relieving citizens of the "burden" of social guilt.
History also teaches us such that across-the-board tax cuts increase revenue and social benefit, while tax increases do just the opposite.
You need more back-up, my friend.
You have been victimized by the media's selective editing vis a vis Limbaugh, but nevermind; while you attempt (vainly) to split semantic hairs, you overlook a tremendous opportunity to explain why Obama's brand of socialism will be different (i.e., successful).
Take your time - I'll wait.
Not at all, I listened to Rush's original statement and his rationalization of what he was saying.
Other than the level of social programs (and as far as I can see he has no intention of going down the same route) I don't know if there will be differences. What is success for one is failure for another. You only have to read the posts in this thread to see that.
But you have either missed or decided to ignore what I was saying.
So I'll try to put it another way.
Your statement says to me that you HOPE Obama can't prove socialism can work here. Not that you don't think he can.
If it does work then the only objection could be ideological and not because of effectiveness.
Oh, okay.
Let's leave "hope" out of it.
Here's what I think:
Socialism is Communism for chicken-shits.
It marginalizes personal potential by financially penalizing those who produce, and steals any semblance of personal impetus from those who are not so well-off, whether that be due to circumstance or laziness.
Maybe our British cohort will understand if I say "Richard is good; Onslow, not so much."
The plain fact is that cars, telephones, airplanes, railroads, banks, medicines, computers, skyscrapers and Ipods were built, invented, founded, or established by people who wanted to be rich, not by people suffering all-encompassing altruism.
Another plain fact relates to the air of elitism that has historically permeated the halls of capitalism - laws are written to control questionable behaviors, then ignored when these elites skate past them, giving them no mind, or are caught red-handed, which hands are then given a mild slap.
You may argue the effectiveness of the death penalty in preventing murders; would you argue it would not have given someone such as Bernard Madoff pause, or perhaps stifled some of these "golden parachutists"?
What if Marc Rich had been handed a ticket to the electric chair, rather than a Presidential pardon?
Capitalism works, when it is properly policed.
Socialism doesn't work, period, and Obama is not the one who will prove otherwise.
In closing, I will note that the "fairness" desired by liberals and socialist everywhere is, sadly, unattainable, and I shouldn't have to tell you why.
You really don't have to waste time trying to explain why you don't like social programs, your ideology isn't a mystery.
As i said before .
If you had originally written you don't think it will succeed, instead of hoping it won't, I wouldn't be responding.
Both capitalism (even properly policed) and socialism have their failures, they both have their successes.
What you are doing is hoping the one you despise fails. You fear it succeeding because it would prove you wrong and your ideology is more important than something that may be a good thing for the country if it succeeds.
It's one thing to doubt something will work, it's another to hope it doesn't.
But then it depends on what success is defined as and who is doing the defining.
I wouldn't worry if I were you. There's plenty of people with the ability to make sure neither side gets to see if their way really works.
I like social programs that work just fine.
Further, I believe such social programs that are necessary should be funded and administered at the state and local levels, primarily because proximity makes for propriety, and the resultant bureaucracies are much more efficient and accountable.
I realize, however, that you do not hold with efficiency and accountability, because of your ideology, which is not the secret you think it is.
Parse that and get back to me.
So then you admit you are quibbling over a semantic issue - this is a welcome development.
But you aren't concerned in any way over the numbers of successes versus failures, or you'd be a capitalist as well.
I despise Obama?
I have to assume you don't know what the word actually means.
Understand this:
I don't hope it doesn't work.
I don't merely doubt that it will work.
I am absolutely positive it won't work.
Surely you can discern the difference.
Or maybe you can't.
Then this begs a question:
How do you define success?
The one purely sensible sentence in your entire post, though, if Obama fails to enact his disastrous agenda, it will be due to a few democrats' having suffering an attack of conscience.
I can't make any sense of that, Ian.
I used "police(d)" as a verb, not a noun.
Our congress has failed to close loopholes and concoct effective regulation (look under "election (re-)" to see why this is).