"Don't you hope Obama succeeds?"

[bigboab]

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.

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.

[Snee]

I lived in Spain for a bunch of years, do not patronize me with the average overallhealth care.

"patronize"?

Yeah, I guess that's one way to call quoting statistics composed by health care professionals and investigators.

What I see is that europeans with money come to the Us for care.

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

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

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.

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:

Waiting times are shorter here because so many can't afford to be in the queue and go untreated.

...Sweet. I'd do great, the unemployed among my pals in the US, though, wouldn't.

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.

[pentomato]

"patronize"?

Yeah, I guess that's one way to call quoting statistics composed by health care professionals and investigators.

What I see is that europeans with money come to the Us for care.

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

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

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.

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:

Waiting times are shorter here because so many can't afford to be in the queue and go untreated.

...Sweet. I'd do great, the unemployed among my pals in the US, though, wouldn't.

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

[devilsadvocate]

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.

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?

[j2k4]

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.

History has a way of repeating itself; that, my friend, is enough to back up my statement.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[devilsadvocate]

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.

[j2k4]

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.

[devilsadvocate]

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

It's not that one thinks he will fail, which is a very legitimate concern.

.

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.

[ilw]

Capitalism works, when it is properly policed.

if you weren't such a chicken-shit capitalist you wouldn't have a government managed police force.

[j2k4]

You really don't have to waste time trying to explain why you don't like social programs, your ideology isn't a mystery.

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.

As i said before

It's not that one thinks he will fail, which is a very legitimate concern.

.

Parse that and get back to me.

If you had originally written you don't think it will succeed, instead of hoping it won't, I wouldn't be responding.

So then you admit you are quibbling over a semantic issue - this is a welcome development.

Both capitalism (even properly policed) and socialism have their failures, they both have their successes.

But you aren't concerned in any way over the numbers of successes versus failures, or you'd be a capitalist as well.

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.

I despise Obama?

I have to assume you don't know what the word actually means.

It's one thing to doubt something will work, it's another to hope it doesn't.

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.

But then it depends on what success is defined as and who is doing the defining.

Then this begs a question:

How do you define success?

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.

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.

Capitalism works, when it is properly policed.

if you weren't such a chicken-shit capitalist you wouldn't have a government managed police force.

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).