|
Post by peacenik on Aug 28, 2008 3:34:36 GMT -8
"Universal Health Care" . . in its "idea" and "concept" and even in its "intention" is a great principle . . . but in reality, all the talk and even all the past and present attempts to institute "universal health care" fail to address the real and most basic problem; the ever shrinking number of actual practicing doctors! . . . the availability and accessibility of doctors to patients . . . and the problem continues to worsen . . .
the "government" might one day soon issue each citizen a "medical card" granting him/her coverage . . . but that same citizen just won't be able to find or "get to' a doctor . . and with medicine being so "specialized" . . it will be even more difficult . . . often a doctor is loctaed at a great distance from where "you, the patient" lives . . . and when sick, or not well, travel to and from a doctor can become almost impossible or problematic . . .
(there are waiting lines already in the "VA" centeres . . and THAT is an existing governemt medical program! . .and that will become the universal "norm" for everyone . . .
what WILL HAPPEN is that the universal medical coverage will become secoond or third rate medical treatment for the masses, while a parallel "private medical establishment" will eveolve for tose who have private monies - the wealthy, who will get excellent medical treatment . . . money ALWAYS talks and ususally even SHOUTS! . . .
who will be the losers? . . most avereage americans, as always.
the real answer to the medical crisis is for the government to perhaps subsidise and flood the country with trained educated doctors . . many of these would probably even provide medical treatement for those who couldn't afford it "gratis" (as often happened in the past by doctors) . . . and the competition in numbers of doctors would also bring the "price down" just as it does for any service . . .
if the gov wants to make medical service available to all . .then it must provide more . . many more doctors . . . if it doesn't, then any "universal' program is doomed to failure and to creating more misery than already exists. . . no matter what anyone says or claims.
|
|
|
Post by b@@b on Aug 28, 2008 7:46:29 GMT -8
If Obama gets in I think he'll do fine. If McCain gets in I don't think he'll be as bad or Bush-like as predicted. If I got in, you'd know we're screwed. As for healthcare...., maybe when people, hard-workin people, themself or immediate family start gettin sick and dyin off cuz they couldn't pay up for needed medical treatment, then all our lil "cabinets" and "planners" out there will get the *** hint!!
|
|
|
Post by slovog on Aug 28, 2008 8:39:59 GMT -8
Is the government prepared to deal with the malpractice lawsuits? That's reason enough for a shortage of doctors. That and a lack of a life away from work. Healthcare is subsidized no matter how you look at it. I spent 6 hours in an emergency room last month mostly waiting around because my son had to have an X-ray that night. I didn't see any real emergencies. It was more like a walk in clinic for the uninsured. Myself and others with health insurance are paying for those without through our policies.
Reagan's my hero james! He got the hostages back in a week after being elected. Carter was on what, day 252? It's a tough job being the worlds police, but somebody's got to do it.
Southern governors have been the only successful Democratic candidates since Kennedy. Algore was hurt in his own state because he really only owned land here. He wasn't educated here, he didn't live here that often and his kids didn't grow up here. He was a resident of Washington D.C.
I think Obama could do fine. I am bothered by the lack of experience. I thought he was 4 years away from running. I like him better than Hillary Clinton, that's for sure. I do think Bush II hurt the ultra-conservative faction and the middle voted in McCain, who is more of a moderate. I still say this is a 4 year gig for whoever gets it. The incumbent will have a hard time holding on in 2012.
|
|
|
Post by duncan175 on Aug 28, 2008 8:50:35 GMT -8
Reagan's my hero james! He got the hostages back in a week after being elected. Carter was on what, day 252? It's a tough job being the worlds police, but somebody's got to do it. you do realise that reagan made sure that they did not get released till he was in office.
|
|
|
Post by james on Aug 28, 2008 8:59:36 GMT -8
Is the government prepared to deal with the malpractice lawsuits? That's reason enough for a shortage of doctors. That and a lack of a life away from work. Healthcare is subsidized no matter how you look at it. I spent 6 hours in an emergency room last month mostly waiting around because my son had to have an X-ray that night. I didn't see any real emergencies. It was more like a walk in clinic for the uninsured. Myself and others with health insurance are paying for those without through our policies. Reagan's my hero james! He got the hostages back in a week after being elected. Carter was on what, day 252? It's a tough job being the worlds police, but somebody's got to do it. Southern governors have been the only successful Democratic candidates since Kennedy. Algore was hurt in his own state because he really only owned land here. He wasn't educated here, he didn't live here that often and his kids didn't grow up here. He was a resident of Washington D.C. I think Obama could do fine. I am bothered by the lack of experience. I thought he was 4 years away from running. I like him better than Hillary Clinton, that's for sure. I do think Bush II hurt the ultra-conservative faction and the middle voted in McCain, who is more of a moderate. I still say this is a 4 year gig for whoever gets it. The incumbent will have a hard time holding on in 2012. Reagan or Carter,they will never be my hero. The problem with being this so called world's police force,is that you only do whats in your interests. Sure Reagan got the hostages home,but he also help funded the Contras,the murders in El Salvador.Chile,underminded Grenada too,i could go on. Camps of America,were torture and murder was taught,first in Panama then in the US state Georgia. Allsorts of criminals from south and Central America,Africa, the middle and far east were taught in these places. Helping the drug dealer Noriego,helping the mass murder Soeharto on Indonesia. The regime of Saudi Arabia. Sadaam in Iraq. When you claim to be the world's police force,but infact you support allsorts of dictatorships,murdring regimes,to protect your own greedy interests,then thats being a police force,for your won side. And yous wonder why the world hates your countries role as this self styled police force. Thats why i have never supported Carter,Reagan,Clinton,Bush etc etc I love the USA and its people,its a great great country,its a pity the elite few run it badly.
|
|
|
Post by drizzletown on Aug 28, 2008 9:22:41 GMT -8
Well James, I guess it's just the time for OUR rich to screw up the world, didn't you all have that role a century ago?
|
|
|
Post by james on Aug 28, 2008 9:38:21 GMT -8
Well James, I guess it's just the time for OUR rich to screw up the world, didn't you all have that role a century ago? Yes,we did indeed,greed knows no boundery. We butchered,raped,robbed all over the world. Slave trade in all. My countries role in the world sucks too.
|
|
|
Post by peacenik on Aug 28, 2008 11:31:31 GMT -8
it seems absolutely insane and unacceptable that the government is able to "flood the world" with military soldiers and equpment . .with weaponry and nuclear "weapons of mass destruction' and whimps out with "we can't educate and train doctors and make them available to the citizens" . . .in other words; we can kill and bring death and destruction effectively and efficiently . . but we can't heal.
|
|
|
Post by slovog on Aug 28, 2008 11:32:51 GMT -8
Like I said, somebody's got to do it. It's dirty and under handed a lot of the time because the people that would take our freedoms are a dirty and under handed lot.
The U.S. waited in The Great War until millions had died before they went in and helped. In WWII again, we waited and waited until we ourselves were attacked before we entered the war. We were criticized roundly and rightfully so for not stepping up as allies and humanitarians to help end those conflicts.
Now, nobody wants us to raise a finger it seems and everybody's the critic when we do. (There's a great A Few Good Men quote I could insert right here but I don't)
Most of the western civilization has got it pretty good and we take that for granted. We can be pacifists, vegetarians and assume any number of personal traits or quirks at our fancy because we've never been tested. We go to the gas station and low and behold, there's gas down there! The grocery stores are full of food, refrigerated even. The water supply is nicely filtered and cleaned with just the right amount of chemical additives and all of our household waste disappears from our trashcans every week. There's a price that's been paid for that.
|
|
|
Post by slovog on Aug 28, 2008 11:34:21 GMT -8
it seems absolutely insane and unacceptable that the government is able to "flood the world" with military soldiers and equpment . .with weaponry and nuclear "weapons of mass destruction' and whimps out with "we can't educate and train doctors and make them available to the citizens" . . .in other words; we can kill and bring death and destruction effectively and efficiently . . but we can't heal. Blame that on the lawyers peacenik. Same with engineers. China and India are producing those at 10 times the rate of the U.S.
|
|
Roger
Adult Chick
Posts: 1,568
|
Post by Roger on Aug 28, 2008 11:35:32 GMT -8
"Universal Health Care" . . in its "idea" and "concept" and even in its "intention" is a great principle . . . but in reality, all the talk and even all the past and present attempts to institute "universal health care" fail to address the real and most basic problem; the ever shrinking number of actual practicing doctors! . . . the availability and accessibility of doctors to patients . . . and the problem continues to worsen . . . the "government" might one day soon issue each citizen a "medical card" granting him/her coverage . . . but that same citizen just won't be able to find or "get to' a doctor . . and with medicine being so "specialized" . . it will be even more difficult . . . often a doctor is loctaed at a great distance from where "you, the patient" lives . . . and when sick, or not well, travel to and from a doctor can become almost impossible or problematic . . . (there are waiting lines already in the "VA" centeres . . and THAT is an existing governemt medical program! . .and that will become the universal "norm" for everyone . . . what WILL HAPPEN is that the universal medical coverage will become secoond or third rate medical treatment for the masses, while a parallel "private medical establishment" will eveolve for tose who have private monies - the wealthy, who will get excellent medical treatment . . . money ALWAYS talks and ususally even SHOUTS! . . . who will be the losers? . . most avereage americans, as always. the real answer to the medical crisis is for the government to perhaps subsidise and flood the country with trained educated doctors . . many of these would probably even provide medical treatement for those who couldn't afford it "gratis" (as often happened in the past by doctors) . . . and the competition in numbers of doctors would also bring the "price down" just as it does for any service . . . if the gov wants to make medical service available to all . .then it must provide more . . many more doctors . . . if it doesn't, then any "universal' program is doomed to failure and to creating more misery than already exists. . . no matter what anyone says or claims. You make excellent points. Here in Canada we have universal medical care. Fine. But there are not enough doctors to go around. This because Canada has the largest baby boom population per capita in the world so the number of older patients needing lots of care is going up into the stratosphere while boomer doctors are starting to retire. Also, several provincial governments, which is the level of government responsible for health care in Canada, deliberately cut back on the number of students in medical schools 15 years ago as a cost cutting measure. Talk about short-sighted! So my point is: even with universal medical care, the actual care is suffering due to a shortage of doctors and nurses. Mind you, we are all suffering equally with long waiting lists. There is no parallel private system here - yet.
|
|
|
Post by james on Aug 28, 2008 11:57:25 GMT -8
John Pilger made a great programme,like he always does,on US foriegn policy and only one guy who worked for Reagans' goverment,told the truth.(wish i could remember his name,time for youtube i think) He said,so we supported this guy and that guy and trained etc. If its protecting our interests,then we will do it. Only thing he disagreed with was the ammount of innocent people killed in central and Southern America. He said it was a few and not thousands.
To have to support Pinochet's overthrown of the democraticly elected goverment in Chile. The killing of millions killed in Vietnam/Laos by weapons of mass detrection. Train and arm mass murders in Nicaragua,El Salvador,Panama,Indonesia,Saudi Arabia,Israel,Kuwait,Iraq,Afghanistan,many corrupt kings and presidents in Africa and many many more,because someone else might do the same,isnt what we as the west should be striving too.
|
|
|
Post by thinwhitechick on Aug 28, 2008 12:28:15 GMT -8
Michelle Obama's speech was so heartfelt and genuine. I hope people got the message. I couldn't tell where her brothers introduction speech ended and her speech started. My opinion, terrible speech. All script. I was embarrassed listening to it. Hilary gave her full backing to Obama last night. If you get a chance, have a listen to her speech. One of the best I have heard in a long time. Agreed. Best speech this week so far. Even better than her husbands speech last night. And that's hard to do! Reagan's my hero james! He got the hostages back in a week after being elected. Carter was on what, day 252? you do realise that reagan made sure that they did not get released till he was in office. One point for Ross. Who would-a-thunk-it?
|
|
|
Post by peppermintpatti on Aug 28, 2008 13:36:17 GMT -8
I need my huh smiley here. W was governor of the biggest republic in the U.S. Same strings as the Kennedy's pulled and Algore's Dad here in Tennessee and so on. Governors have zero experience in foreign policy. I might agree that they are somewhat prepared from a domestic level. I've always thought of the president as just the front man that is more or less the face of the country. The cabinet appointees are the ones doing all the heavy lifting. Thank you! Senators have the e-x-p-e-r-i-e-n-c-e of Washington D.C., something that almost everyone is bashing Obama of NOT having. I think if a porn star and a porn entrepreneur can run for Govenor (and almost succeed), then what credibility does that bring to the title "Governor." The terminator is our Governor and sucking tremendously, do we want him running for president? Why bash Obama for no experience, then give credibility to Governors who have less experience than him as far as Washington D.C. is concerned? They are not part of Congress. Obama is. You are contradicting yourselves. Are you sure you're not a memeber of the churc of Obama? Govenors have experience of being an executive offical where as Obama is still just a Senator with 4 years of experience. I fail to see how that's contradictory. Being the head and being a part of a multi headed governoring body are two totally different things.
|
|
More Fiddle
Adult Chick
Pride. Power. Pinstripes.
Posts: 1,192
|
Post by More Fiddle on Aug 28, 2008 13:37:04 GMT -8
Reagan's my hero james! He got the hostages back in a week after being elected. Carter was on what, day 252? It's a tough job being the worlds police, but somebody's got to do it. Not quite. The hostages were released on January 20, 1981... minutes after Reagan was inaugurated. He had nothing to do with getting the hostages released. The Iranians deliberately waited until Carter was no longer officially President in order to humiliate him.
|
|
|
Post by peppermintpatti on Aug 28, 2008 13:39:38 GMT -8
Duh KFC. Cronyism is cronyism on both sides of the isle. I picked W because he was the only governor of the bunch you named. The other two were just Senators. As for federalizing everything, HA!!! Things would be far more worse than they are now. The country would have to be re-named States of America with every state fending for itself. I guess you two didn't like the way the Civil War turned out. I wonder why? Duh! Cuz I still don't like a bunch of Yankees in Washington telling me how to conduct my business in Tennessee. There are some federal rules that do need to apply across the board. The 'thou shalts' if you will. There are others that are more state specific. If I had 50 children, I would have a set of house rules that every one would have to obey, but each child is different and deserves their own set of punishment and incentives depending on how they are best motivated. Russia is having that discussion with Georgia these days. Yep, we'd have alot more Civil Wars here than other places. States have autonomy now while still being a part of the big picture. What if one state wants to re-enstate slavery or segreation? Who would be there to put a stop to that? Or what about the feud between Tennesse and Georgia over water? What's to stop Ga from storming in and taking part of the river?
|
|
|
Post by peppermintpatti on Aug 28, 2008 13:43:36 GMT -8
As for Reagan. I think he's one of the worst presidents ever. Not only did he ignore the growing AIDS problem, whe he finally did acknowledge it he claimed it was God punishing the Gays for their sinful lifestyle. Reaganomics further stratified the rich and the poor populations in America and inflation soared, and don't even get me started on Iran-Contra and all the other covert ops that took place in Central America. Yeah, that's a great role model for a president.
|
|
|
Post by BILLI on Aug 28, 2008 13:59:27 GMT -8
I just sat and read this whole thread.... damn we got some powerful voices on this board. my few cents, meaningless I know but I cannot resist! 1. Reagan sucked, he was almost as bad as Bush. 2. Carter, although not the greatest President, is now in my opinion one of the United States most philanthropic people. He is a wonderful humanitarian. 3. Yes, Obama does lack "time served" but what about what he has? What he brings? Hope.... change..... a new FRESH perspective. We are currently stuck w/a 2 party system, no way out in this election. Thanks but no thanks on McSame.
|
|
Roger
Adult Chick
Posts: 1,568
|
Post by Roger on Aug 28, 2008 14:15:55 GMT -8
I think that most people in my country will think Americans have taken leave of their senses if they elect McCain. But then.... Americans elected Bush, not just once, but twice. That was truly insane!
|
|
|
Post by james on Aug 28, 2008 14:21:54 GMT -8
I just sat and read this whole thread.... damn we got some powerful voices on this board. my few cents, meaningless I know but I cannot resist! 1. Reagan sucked, he was almost as bad as Bush. 2. Carter, although not the greatest President, is now in my opinion one of the United States most philanthropic people. He is a wonderful humanitarian. 3. Yes, Obama does lack "time served" but what about what he has? What he brings? Hope.... change..... a new FRESH perspective. We are currently stuck w/a 2 party system, no way out in this election. Thanks but no thanks on McSame. You are certainly not meaningless,we are not worthy.
|
|
|
Post by james on Aug 28, 2008 14:22:17 GMT -8
I think that most people in my country will think Americans have taken leave of their senses if they elect McCain. But then.... Americans elected Bush, not just once, but twice. That was truly insane! Well said Roger.
|
|
|
Post by b@@b on Aug 28, 2008 15:35:53 GMT -8
If you think Obama isn't prepared to be leader of the nation, then you must ask yourself why is he trying. ...What is his motive?? He does not seem like the kind opf guy after egocentric power of the office, or to continue a family maintsay, like we have dealt with already. This is finally a guy who sems to have a noggin on his shoulders running for this office and can respond to several questions and issues not in some rhetorical ways but yet factual ones. I feel that we won't hear the boring same kinds of State of the Union addresses like we have for so long and that's a starting example right there. You can call him a speech genius but the speeches are where faith in a leader starts; the action takes place behind closed doors afterwards either way. I don't think I can put either of the two remaining candies that far ahead of eachother in any department on creating action.
|
|
|
Post by peppermintpatti on Aug 28, 2008 15:59:33 GMT -8
Just because he doesn't "seem" like the typical egocentric politican doesn't mean he doesn't have the same egotiscal motives that other politicans have had before him. I'm not blinded by the light that surrounds him. He's still a man, and worse yet a politician. He's far better than McBush, but I don't see him as a savior either. Until I see results on his promises and proposals, I'll be skeptical of him and his ability to lead a nation. Talk is cheap. Let him walk it and then I'll have confidence in him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2008 16:26:41 GMT -8
Well James, I guess it's just the time for OUR rich to screw up the world, didn't you all have that role a century ago? Yes,we did indeed,greed knows no boundery. We butchered,raped,robbed all over the world. Slave trade in all. My countries role in the world sucks too. Past tense, James - sucked. Right now we're having precious little effect on anyone: the Taliban are winning in Afghanistan, and as for "our" bit of Iraq ... And we're only in there at all because Bush's crew befuddled our last, unlamented PM! 1956 (the lunatic Suez adventure, while the Russians were busy sacking Hungary) was the last Brit initiative to intervene seriously in someone else's affairs entirely for mainland UK's economic benefit. (The Falklands certainly wasn't in that category!) Since then our interference has been as one of a number (Tony Blair's madness excepted). Most of us finally realised the world of the First and Second World Wars had changed forever, and that having US missiles and a place in the UN Security Cttee didn't give us the right or ability to charge in any longer. Not that UK foreign policy is entirely altruistic, or ever will be Currently it's a load of hot air, as Moscow knows very well So please don't apologise now, as if the Raj was still ongoing. As Gerry Springer just recently discovered while tracing his ancestors' fate in the holocaust, it's incredible that all that happened only 70 years ago. True, but modern Germans do not continue to apologise daily for what their grandfathers did. And the Japs have never apologised at all. We've been through beating ourselves up about our colonial past, and it's long past time to recognise it as history, like everyone else. The alternative is to bankrupt ourselves - and our future - paying "compensation" to most of the world, including America So maybe it is the US' turn to be messing things up, as Drizzle suggests. Ironic as half a century ago the US' voice was among the loudest condemning such behaviour, but that's the crazy world we live in.
|
|
|
Post by drizzletown on Aug 28, 2008 17:02:11 GMT -8
Yep, Bush is making some GREAT history for us. Crickey!! If McCain gets in, more of the same. More history making. *shakes head* It's like we're regressing, the filthy fu**ing rich still rule the US, and evidently if they can snub the UN completely, rule the world. You may not have to apologize, but the US is still young and still stupid, and have much to apologize & compensate for. JMHO.
|
|