View Full Version : Hope & Change
excon
Jun 14, 2012, 05:47 AM
Hello:
If it weren't for the radical Supreme Court nominees Romney would make, Obama should be defeated. First off, he's a center right president.. But, he's EXTREMELY right in SOME of his policies. Here's my list:
1. He didn't close Gitmo.
2. He approved unlimited detention.
3. He's using flawed military tribunals to try the terrorists - IF that ever happens.. I'll bet not.
3. He's DEPORTED more Mexicans than Bush ever dreamed of doing.
4. He's doubled down on the war against marijuana, EVEN THOUGH he used to smoke it himself.
5. He's killing (droning) Americans contrary to the Constitution.
6. He's warring in nations without congressional approval.
7. He has given in to the Republicans in congress at EVERY opportunity.
8. He stands by letting college graduates enter the world with CRUSHING and unsustainable debt.
9. I'll think of something.
excon
RickJ
Jun 14, 2012, 06:35 AM
If by "right" you mean "correct" then I'll agree that Obama is correct in some of his policies :)
As to the numbered points (which I do not believe are "right-left" issues)
1. Good. When there are bad teachers we don't close the school. When there are bad employees we don't close the company. There was never a good reason given to close Gitmo.
2. Under certain circumstances, some individuals fall under the "unlimited detention" policy.
3. Nothing is perfect. To say that something is flawed is like saying that some water is moist.
3 (the 2nd one). I can't say that I agree or disagree. I'd like to see a link to a credible source that tells us how many people have been deported under Bush and Obama... but even if I saw it, I don't think that I could agree that POTUS is personally in charge of deportations.
4. No comment. I don't know what doubling down means. All I know is that each year, pot is being decriminalized - and even legalized - more and more. So how someone could say that Obama has "doubled" the war against pot is beyond me.
5. I have no clue about Obama killing Americans contrary to the Constitution.
6. As if Congressional approval means that it's justified?
7. We will have to agree to disagree. Without examples, a comment like "Obama has given in to the Republicans at EVERY opportunity" is equal to it's opposite.
8. This is not an issue that the POTUS can (or should try to) fix.
Obama is not unlike many of our past Presidents who
1. Make many promises when campaigning, and then
2. Blame the previous administration when they fail to keep their promises.
And
3. Spend WAY too much on JUNK, and then tell the public that they have spent less than the previous administration(s) by twisting the numbers.
The subject line of the original post was "Hope and Change".
I sure HOPE there is CHANGE.
speechlesstx
Jun 14, 2012, 06:39 AM
I'm sure hoping we can mover forward with change I can believe in instead of giving him a do-over.
smoothy
Jun 14, 2012, 06:39 AM
Hello:
If it weren't for the radical Supreme Court nominees Romney would make, Obama should be defeated. First off, he's a center right president.. But, he's EXTREMELY right in SOME of his policies. Here's my list:As opposed to the radicals Obama "the food stamp predisent" actually DID put on the court?
1. He didn't close Gitmo. He lied to the lefties... anyone who knows anything knows there was no practical alternative.
2. He approved unlimited detention. Common sense... they are POW's not convicted criminals
3. He's using flawed military tribunals to try the terrorists - IF that ever happens.. I'll bet not.As opposed to the flawed liberal courts in some places? A far better alternative. THey should be grateful they get that much.
3. He's DEPORTED more Mexicans than Bush ever dreamed of doing. Really... most fled on their own since Obama destroyed the economy they came here to profit on.
4. He's doubled down on the war against marijuana, EVEN THOUGH he used to smoke it himself. Really... thats news to most of us.
5. He's killing (droning) Americans contrary to the Constitution.Nope... he's killing traitors that joined those that are at war against the USA... big difference. We killed US citizens that returned to Germany to fight against the USA in WW2 as well as Japanese that did the same thing... no outrage there?
6. He's warring in nations without congressional approval. And yet the lefties raised hell when Bush was Warring WITH approval of congress
7. He has given in to the Republicans in congress at EVERY opportunity.Really... you mean like Obamacare? And all the Stuff Prince Harry reffuses to allow to have a vote that the Congress already passed?
8. He stand's by letting college graduates enter the world with CRUSHING and unsustainable debt. Nobody made them borrow all that money for Courses that have no practical job field... like Philosaphy... and a lot of Liberal arts courses that teach you nothing practical. THey borrowed the money... they are obligagted to pay it all back... plus interest. I did it... because I had the misfortune of being born white... and poor and got no help while Obama got a free ride just because of his skin color at the same time even though I had better grades.
9. I'll think of something.
exconKeep trying...
paraclete
Jun 14, 2012, 06:51 AM
Ex I think you are confused with someone who is continuing the policies of his predecessor because he can't change anything. He has to do something so he is doing what he can. But he did pull the troops out of Iraq even if he sent some to Afghanistan and he has tried to fix health care which is definitely a non right objective.
Now we would all like to see him stand for something and win that Peace prize but it just ain't going to happen
excon
Jun 14, 2012, 06:58 AM
3. I'd like to see a link to a credible source that tells us how many people have been deported under Bush and Obama... but even if I saw it, I don't think that I could agree that POTUS is personally in charge of deportations.
4. No comment. I don't know what doubling down means. All I know is that each year, pot is being decriminalized - and even legalized - more and more. So how someone could say that Obama has "doubled" the war against pot is beyond me.
5. I have no clue about Obama killing Americans contrary to the Constitution.Hello Rick:
The DEA along with ICE are in the executive branch of government. The president RUNS that department... That means DEA and ICE follow his instructions..
Obama is on pace to deport more immigrants through his first term than Bush did in his entire presidency. Read about here (http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-09-21/politics/30183509_1_immigrants-with-criminal-records-unauthorized-immigrant-illegal-immigrants)in the Business Insider.
Bush let the states decide their medical marijuana laws, and Obama promised that he would too. He LIED. Read about it here (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/03/pelosi-condemns-obamas-continued-raids-on-marijuana-dispensaries/). Even Nancy Pelosi doesn't like it.
Some people think that the government can't execute an American citizen without due process of law. At least that's what the Constitution says. But, Obama droned Awlaki and his son anyway... Read about here (http://www.military.com/news/article/2011/awlaqi-killing-reignites-us-rights-debate.html) at military.com.
excon
tomder55
Jun 14, 2012, 08:21 AM
4. Don't you know that legalizing pot is the October surprise ?
Democrats Look to Cultivate Pot Vote in 2012 - WSJ.com (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298504575534321493828944.html?m g=reno64-wsj)
speechlesstx
Jun 14, 2012, 08:49 AM
I wouldn't expect less from thew leader of the 'choom gang. (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/obama-and-his-pot-smoking-choom-gang/)'
excon
Jun 14, 2012, 08:57 AM
I wouldn't expect less from the leader of the 'choom gang. (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/obama-and-his-pot-smoking-choom-gang/)'Hello again, Steve:
That only makes his war on pot even MORE hypocritical. If, perchance, he'd have been BUSTED, like he's BUSING people TODAY, he would NOT be president. He would NOT have gone to Harvard. He would NOT have married Michelle and have two beautiful children. He'd be just another black unemployed exconvict hanging on the streets.
How he doesn't get this, I don't know.
excon
smearcase
Jun 14, 2012, 09:05 AM
Possible # 10:
Failure to hold anybody in previous admin. Accountable for going to war by mistake, and admitted violations of the Geneva Conventions.
Maybe it should be #10 and #11 but 10 is a nice round number.
excon
Jun 14, 2012, 09:09 AM
Possible # 10:
Failure to hold anybody in previous admin. accountable for going to war by mistake, and admitted violations of the Geneva Conventions.Hello smear:
Good 'un. Hereby ADOPTED. It's OFFICIALLY #10.
excon
smearcase
Jun 14, 2012, 09:16 AM
USN would have held you and I responsible for Geneva Convention violations, should have applied to cheney too.
smoothy
Jun 15, 2012, 05:34 AM
Possible # 10:
Failure to hold anybody in previous admin. accountable for going to war by mistake, and admitted violations of the Geneva Conventions.
Maybe it shoudl be #10 and #11 but 10 is a nice round number.
The Obama administration isn't a previous administration yet...
Bush had congresses approval... Obama never even tried to get it.
And there were not violations of the Geneva Convention... you can't pick which parts do or don't apply... they are either criminals or they are POW's... you can't have it both ways.
And incidentally... Terrorists are not entitled to Geneva Convention protections... they aren't part of a regular army.. they aren't wearing uniforms of a regular army.
In every previous war... anyone caught taking actions OUT of uniform... were not afforded those protections... and treated accordingly... usually questioned and then shot.
speechlesstx
Jun 15, 2012, 06:13 AM
Um, how can anyone be held accountable "for going to war by mistake" when the UN Security unanimously gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations", and they did not?
excon
Jun 15, 2012, 06:19 AM
Um, how can anyone be held accountable "for going to war by mistake" Hello again, Steve:
So, we should LISTEN to the UN?? I thought right wingers would NEVER do what the UN wanted us to do...
I don't know how much you know about LEADERSHIP, but it's ABOUT the mistakes you make.. There AIN'T no pointing to somebody else when you're the TOP guy. It's EASY to say, it's not my fault, but it WAS. It ABSOLUTELY was, and you want to give him a pass.
Dude. As you can see, I tell the TRUTH about MY president... YOU?? Not so much.
excon
paraclete
Jun 15, 2012, 06:21 AM
Um, how can anyone be held accountable "for going to war by mistake" when the UN Security unanimously gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations", and they did not?
Let's not rerun that old argument. GWB made a unilateral declaration of war and attacked Iraq, UN approval was secondary. He took some cronies with him, why they were there is because they believed the B/S. Left to its own devices the UN would not have declared war because certain nations on the security council would have vetoed it in the same way they now veto intervention in Syria
smoothy
Jun 15, 2012, 06:26 AM
Democrats are incapible of grasping the concept of what a Cease Fire agreement actually means.
They actually think the Korean war ended too... and they are wrong there too.
tomder55
Jun 15, 2012, 06:37 AM
Democrats are incapible of grasping the concept of what a Cease Fire agreement actually means.
They actually think the Korean war ended too....and they are wrong there too.
Yup... that was but one of the many reasons given for the war.
speechlesstx
Jun 15, 2012, 06:37 AM
Hello again, Steve:
So, we should LISTEN to the UN???? I thought right wingers would NEVER do what the UN wanted us to do...
I don't know how much you know about LEADERSHIP, but it's ABOUT the mistakes you make.. There AIN'T no pointing to somebody else when you're the TOP guy. It's EASY to say, it's not my fault, but it WAS. It ABSOLUTELY was, and you wanna give him a pass.
Dude. As you can see, I tell the TRUTH about MY president... YOU??? Not so much.
excon
Dude, when have I been afraid to criticize my side? Never, but it's not me saying "trust the UN," it's your side that suddenly decided to say "don't trust the UN." Regardless, Bush had the authority from both Congress and the UN so exactly how do you hold Bush accountable for a "multinational force" of 41 countries for doing what was authorized?
Oh, and leaders don't lead from behind.
tomder55
Jun 15, 2012, 06:40 AM
Left to its own devices the UN would not have declared war because certain nations on the security council would have vetoed it in the same way they now veto intervention in Syria
Not quite... Left to their own devices they would not have declared war because they were in on the Oil for Food bribe gravy train .
smoothy
Jun 15, 2012, 06:45 AM
The UN is a mostly useless bunch of self important blowhards that beat their chests and think they are far more important than they actually are, that consume far more American Dollars than they should be given..
speechlesstx
Jun 15, 2012, 07:19 AM
Oh come on Smoothy, they are really good at deploring things.
smoothy
Jun 15, 2012, 07:35 AM
Oh come on Smoothy, they are really good at deploring things.
They aren't even good at that... because they deplore the wrong things... and ignore the things that SHOULD be deplored more often than they do the right thing.
speechlesstx
Jun 15, 2012, 07:40 AM
OK, so they're really good at using it in a sentence.
smoothy
Jun 15, 2012, 07:44 AM
OK, so they're really good at using it in a sentence.
I can agree with that...
tomder55
Jun 15, 2012, 09:17 AM
4 again .
I agree with Excon . The President is no friend of stoners. I think ALL stoner Obama supporters who think that the President betrayed them should vote for Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson.
smoothy
Jun 15, 2012, 09:23 AM
Oh... and #3 is being debunked by dumboears himself... so he can hand green-cards out in a desperate attempt to buy votes..
White House to halt deportation of young illegal immigrants | The Ticket - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/report-white-house-halt-deportation-young-illegal-immigrants-133800284.html)
speechlesstx
Jun 15, 2012, 09:40 AM
I have a question, is #10 really #9 now?
smoothy
Jun 15, 2012, 09:49 AM
We have two number threes... I just noticed that...
speechlesstx
Jun 15, 2012, 09:54 AM
I wonder if ex has been to the same 57 states as Obama.
excon
Jun 15, 2012, 10:02 AM
I wonder if ex has been to the same 57 states as Obama.Hello Steve:
That cracked me up. You KNOW I'm going to rebound from #4.
excon
speechlesstx
Jun 15, 2012, 10:13 AM
So that's where you've been.
smoothy
Jun 15, 2012, 10:16 AM
SHHHHHHHH! Those other 7 states are supposed to be sercet. Canada is one and Mexico is another.
speechlesstx
Jun 15, 2012, 11:12 AM
Here's your hopenchange - in addition to the ever-expanding cost of Obamacare (http://www.economist.com/node/21556931?fsrc=scn/tw/te/ar/upupandaway), doctors have weighed in (http://www.dpmafoundation.org/physician-attitudes-on-medicine.html) and it isn't pretty:
90% say the medical system is on the WRONG TRACK
83% say they are thinking about QUITTING
61% say the system challenges their ETHICS
85% say the patient-physician relationship is in a TAILSPIN
65% say GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT is most to blame for current problems
72% say individual insurance mandate will NOT result in improved access care
49% say they will STOP accepting Medicaid patients
74% say they will STOP ACCEPTING Medicare patients, or leave Medicare completely
52% say they would rather treat some Medicaid/Medicare patient for FREE
57% give the AMA a FAILING GRADE representing them
1 out of 3 doctors is HESITANT to voice their opinion
2 out of 3 say they are JUST SQUEAKING BY OR IN THE RED financially
95% say private practice is losing out to CORPORATE MEDICINE
80% say DOCTORS/MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS are most likely to help solve things
70% say REDUCING GOVERNMENT would be single best fix.
But at least we aren't Greece (http://news.yahoo.com/greek-health-system-crumbles-under-weight-crisis-141916117.html)... yet.
excon
Jun 15, 2012, 11:20 AM
Here's your hopenchange - in addition to the ever-expanding cost of Obamacare (http://www.economist.com/node/21556931?fsrc=scn/tw/te/ar/upupandaway), doctors have weighed in (http://www.dpmafoundation.org/physician-attitudes-on-medicine.html) and it isn't prettyHello again, Steve:
Then the doctors are going to LOVE the VIB & the BVA. That's short for the Vagina Inspection Bureau & Birth Verification Authority.
Nobody will escape..
excon
smoothy
Jun 15, 2012, 11:37 AM
Is that What Bill Clinton calls it now? And here all along we thought he was just fooling around.
speechlesstx
Jun 15, 2012, 11:53 AM
83% of doctors say they are thinking about QUITTING and you want to go back to the phony war on women meme? If the docs quit we won't have to worry about any of that stuff anyway, we will be Greece.
smoothy
Jun 15, 2012, 12:27 PM
The European Health care system SUCKS compared to the American one... and how utterly clueless most people are about the reality of it.
In Europe... if you go to a Specialist YOU pay, if you go to a dentist YOU pay... need medications YOU pay... women need to go to a gynecologits... YOU pay... need a hip replacement or elective surgery... get on a waiting list that can be months or years long. I've spent enough time living in Europe to see how bad their system is compared to our own.
I have an apartment there now and I used to live and work there... I still have a valid European tax id...
speechlesstx
Jun 15, 2012, 01:07 PM
And if go the doc in Greece you have to slip them an envelope (http://news.yahoo.com/greek-health-system-crumbles-under-weight-crisis-141916117.html)... if you have anything to slip.
Even before the crisis, public hospitals were under strain and the notorious cash-filled "fakelaki" or "little envelope" which patients have had to hand over to get good treatment have become a byword for the corruption in the system.
I can't wait until I have to bribe my doctor to get some health care.
TUT317
Jun 15, 2012, 08:47 PM
The European Health care system SUCKS compared to the American one....and how utterly clueless most people are about the reality of it.
In Europe.....if you go to a Specialist YOU pay, if you go to a dentist YOU pay...need medications YOU pay...women need to go to a gynecologits....YOU pay......need a hip replacement or elective surgery....get on a waiting list that can be months or years long. I've spent enough time living in Europe to see how bad their system is compared to our own.
I have an apartment there now and I used to live and work there.....I still have a valid European tax id...
Hi Smoothy,
This wouldn't be some sort of massive generalization?
France is in Europe.
Health Care Lessons From France : NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92419273)
paraclete
Jun 16, 2012, 06:01 AM
Hi Smoothy,
This wouldn't be some sort of massive generalization?
France is in Europe.
Health Care Lessons From France : NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92419273)
Of course it is a generalisation and smoothy here is another the US health care system costs are out of control, the costs of your so called better health care are making insurance companies rich and the population poor
TUT317
Jun 16, 2012, 07:24 AM
of course it is a generalisation and smoothy here is another the US health care system costs are out of control, the costs of your so called better health care are making insurance companies rich and the population poor
I think that every health care system would be suffering at the moment under some type of austerity measures. The provision of health will always be a political football. Nonetheless, it important that it boils down to the system that is the most efficient in terms of money being poured into it.
It's chalk and cheese at the moment. Unless of course France doesn't exist in Europe or anywhere else.
Tut
tomder55
Jun 16, 2012, 08:29 AM
Yeah France exists . I can't comment on their health care system except to observe that the new government plans on lowering retirement age... which means there will be even less productive workers to fund their plan . I wonder how fiscally sound their plan is now . I suspect ,;like most western nations ,their entitement systems are rapidly driving towards a cliff.
paraclete
Jun 16, 2012, 03:48 PM
I think that every health care system would be suffering at the moment under some type of austerity measures. The provision of health will always be a political football. Nonetheless, it important that it boils down to the system that is the most efficient in terms of money being poured into it.
It's chalk and cheese at the moment. Unless of course France doesn't exist in Europe or anywhere else.
Tut
Generalisation doesn't suit this argument, our health system is not suffering under austerity measures although I agree that political parties like to kick the ball down the road now and again. The French system probably works for french people but not for foriegners just as ours works for our people
smoothy
Jun 16, 2012, 07:36 PM
of course it is a generalisation and smoothy here is another the US health care system costs are out of control, the costs of your so called better health care are making insurance companies rich and the population poor
At least they aren't making the population dead here in the USA while they are forced to wait months or years for needed procedures like in other countries...
Hell... the Canadian Prime minister came to the USA for a surgery and paid for it out of pocket rather than deal with the Canadian system.
I'm making LESS generalizations than most are... how many here have Personal long term, current and recent experience with the health care systems in more than one country? Hands please? I have. And watching it on TV or reading about it in a newspaper doesn't count.
paraclete
Jun 16, 2012, 08:51 PM
No smoothy I must say I have been fortunate during my visits to other countries not to avail myself of their health care system, although if I were to go today that might be different. It is true that in some systems you might wait for procedures depending upon whether you are insured or not, however none of that clouds the facts that the US system is very expensive relative to other countries and you have to wonder why, the standard of care is not necessarily greater, or at least not so much greater as to warrant the disparity in costs and that must bring into question the enterprenerial nature of both the health care providers and the insurers
smoothy
Jun 16, 2012, 09:07 PM
no smoothy I must say I have been fortunate during my visits to ther countries not to avail myself of their health care system, although if I were to go today that might be different. It is true that in some systems you might wait for procedures depending upon whether you are insured or not, however none of that clouds the facts that the US system is very expensive relative to other countries and you have to wonder why, the standard of care is not necessarily greater, or at least not so much greater as to warrant the disparity in costs and that must bring into question the enterprenerial nature of both the health care providers and the insurers
Its expensive because you get a higher level of care here, now when you need it... without rationing or waiting.
If you have been in the insides of hospitals in several countries you would see what I am talking about...
I have inlaws in Italy... I have a condo there and spend a substantial amount time there annually, and have over the last 20 years... PLUS I lived and worked there for 6 years prior to that. SO I've got 26 years and counting experience with European Socialized medicine.
ANd of course... I'm 50 and been through the ER more than a few times here myself and had two surgeries here.
I have a list of people of all ages that died over there (Italy) ranging from 19 to 70 I knew personally that likely would have survived in the USA. From coworkers to friends to a girlfriend to a father-in-law. I've accompanied more than a few through the emergency rooms over there as well.
paraclete
Jun 16, 2012, 11:23 PM
smoothy I have wound up in ER here a couple of times late at night and the standard of care couldn't be better, but like everywhere else there have been isolated nightmare stories. I am glad I don''t live in a major city. Now our Hospitals are what you might describe as socialised medicine at least that's where you are going to go if you need the ER and I think our survival rate is fairly good.
TUT317
Jun 17, 2012, 12:46 AM
Its expensive because you get a higher level of care here, now when you need it....without rationing or waiting.
If you have been in the insides of hospitals in several countries you would see what I am talking about...
I have inlaws in Italy...I have a condo there and spend a substantial amount time there annually, and have over the last 20 years...PLUS I lived and worked there for 6 years prior to that. SO I've got 26 years and counting experience with European Socialized medicine.
ANd of course....I'm 50 and been through the ER more than a few times here myself and had two surgeries here.
I have a list of people of all ages that died over there (Italy) ranging from 19 to 70 I knew personally that likely would have survived in the USA. From coworkers to friends to a girlfriend to a father-in-law. I've accompanied more than a few through the emergency rooms over there as well.
What you seem to be saying is that you have experienced the health care system of a few countries. Italy and America are the ones you mention.
The point I am making is that the Italian system is not the French system, is not the English system, is not the Spanish system. They all be called universal health care systems, but there are important differences in a number of areas, notably private and public funding of the systems.
When it comes to information, newspapers and T.V. can provide both accurate and inaccurate information. A lot can also depend on the political leaning of the particular media. Best to source your information form as may different areas as possible.
Tut
smoothy
Jun 17, 2012, 07:12 AM
smoothy I have wound up in ER here a couple of times late at night and the standard of care couldn't be better, but like everywhere else there have been isolated nightmare stories. I am glad I don''t live in a major city. Now our Hospitals are what you might describe as socialised medicine at least that's where you are going to go if you need the ER and I think our survival rate is fairly good.
I can't compare those in Australia to either Europe or the USA.. Never been there and don't currently know anyone (off this site) that have been both places long enough to compare.
I was comparing a quite large Provincial Hospital in Italy to several different ones in the USA I have been through the doors of in my life.
paraclete
Jun 17, 2012, 07:19 AM
Smoothy, I think you will find the standard of care varies throughout the world and dare I say the USA. Socialised medicine does not cause the standard of care to decline it is the standard of training. I have know Australian doctors who have gone to the US to practice medicine and in that instance I don't think the standard of care would have been what either of us might expect
smoothy
Jun 17, 2012, 07:26 AM
What you seem to be saying is that you have experienced the health care system of a few countries. Italy and America are the ones you mention.
The point I am making is that the Italian system is not the French system, is not the English system, is not the Spanish system. They all be called universal health care systems, but there are important differences in a number of areas, notably private and public funding of the systems.
When it comes to information, newspapers and T.V. can provide both accurate and inaccurate information. A lot can also depend on the political leaning of the particular media. Best to source your information form as may different areas as possible.
Tut
I generally disagree with most of what I see on TV, radio or in print. What they print is HEAVILY dependent on their political leaning... even to the point of printing patently false information. The New York Times and Washington Post are two examples I am choosing. Being I have personally seen unfiltered events and data over the years BEFORE the media got their hands on it and distorted it. Often enough I'm not even sure they don't try to spin the weather too. No I'm not going to print how and where online, lets just say I started to find this out in the Mid 80's. When I witnessed a gang fight and shooting in Baltimore then saw how wrong ALL of the TV stations where when they reported on the events that happened... and there were very few witnesses there. The rest in the following years I'm not putting online.
The systems in Europe aren't all that much different from each other... you are going to find variances even within a country... the main point I was making, none of them are the models of perfection claimed by much of the left leaning media here in the USA who have the mindset of a bushel or crabs... ( you don't need a cover as the crabs will pull any that try to climb out back in) . Where they have a mindset nobody else is entitled to something better than what THEY can get free... or a race for the bottom so to speak.
Don't remember where you live TUT, though I think you have told me in the past.
smoothy
Jun 17, 2012, 07:40 AM
Smoothy, I think you will find the standard of care varies throughout the world and dare I say the USA. Socialised medicine does not cause the standard of care to decline it is the standard of training. I have know Australian doctors who have gone to the US to practice medicine and in that instance I don't think the standard of care would have been what either of us might expect
I can't speak for Australia... only Europe... and the Brits frequently publish accounts of HUGE problems within their system... that are well known and easily found, and the French are so socialist leaning in nature... I don't trust anything they claim. That country and much of Europe are in such a mess now mostly as a result of the cost of socialized medicine of other massive social programs that drain their economies.
I'd still rather be in a hospital in the USA than anywhere else in the world. Never claimed our system was perfect... just that it has fewer problems than the others. And like any business... what you can provide in services is dependent on the money you have coming in for offering it.
Doctors aren't going to bust their butts for eight years of Med school alone to make as much as the average burger flipper that never went to college.
smearcase
Jun 17, 2012, 08:31 AM
I have no personal knowledge or experience at all on this issue (comparison of care in other places vs U.S.)
Just an outside observation.
A neighbor of mine who was from UK and had been here in US for maybe 2 yrs (and this was about 8 years ago) had to have some serious stomach surgery here in US. I simply asked him how he was doing and he said he was fine and had received excellent care but he missed the system that he had previously in UK and felt that it worked much better.
I can only assume that he was talking about administratively.
My only problem personally here in the US is the paperwork jungle, etc. Trying to reach the Dr's office by phone is the first hurdle, then trying to find out if a particular Dr. accepts my insurance and really not having much confidence in the answer I receive from the Dr.'s office staff. Then if I get past that hurdle depending on what my Dr. orders done after my visit there may be Dr's, labs, radiologists who will be involved down the line and I have no way to check if they accept my insurance. I may only find out when I get the bill.
I had an anesthesiologist come to my room at about 10PM on the night before an upcoming early morning minor surgical procedure a few years ago- and he was there to tell me that he was going to be my anesthesiologist the next morning and he didn't participate in my plan- but I could arrange (between the hours of 10PM and 7 AM) to get another Dr. if I chose to. Yeah, right.
In my area of the East Coast, it takes 2 months to get an appt. with most specialists, even when I lied and told them I was severely ill. My small town of less than 10,000 people and major hospitals on the east coast about 100 miles away. No real difference with wait time. (The comments near the end of this post I have not experienced so much locally).
Most of the specialists require referrals even though my plan doesn't require referrals which is just more hassle for me, a hassle that I pay a higher premium to avoid.
I haven't had any serious illnesses to deal with (yet) I am happy to say but I feel sorry for the people who are seriously ill because I think they probably get the same level of cooperation I do.
I overheard an elderly gentleman in the coffee shop at a major metropolitan hospital-- well-known institution telling who I think was his daughter--
"Whenever I try to ask these folks in my Dr's office here a question--they always act like I am interrupting them and they seen annoyed with me" and his daughter (?) said--"Well I was in this hospital for several days recently and that's exactly how I was treated in that situation too".
But I think that the old guy summed up pretty well what I experience many of the places I go- "annoyed" pretty well describes it.
But there are quite a few exceptions where the staff(s) are not annoyed, but they are hard to find sometimes.
I don't know which system is better because I haven't personally experienced both but there is much room for improvement in my little corner of the world here in the U.S.
I won't dwell on the mistakes experienced by several friends and relatives (and near mistakes caught by their advocates--I was the advocate in several of the cases and the patient in a few too) who happened to be with them when the mistake was about to be made) but most of the mistakes were of the life-threatening variety. All within the past two years.
I avoid the medical system like the plaque to be honest.
I think that the system in my region certainly has made some people dead. Waiting two months for a specialist can certainly cause that and maybe the person has no idea whether the symptoms could be very serious and doesn't pursue other options (or just plain can't pursue other options- like expensive ER's, or travelling many miles etc (and the travel wouldn't help in my area-it's the same in most of the institutions large and small that I have experienced. But I recently stumbled into a big medical center that seemed to be different (much better) and I try them out next time I need to. I haven't given up completely.
paraclete
Jun 17, 2012, 04:01 PM
well smearcase we certainly don't have those problems here the system works seamlessly. In my last vist to the ER I walked out of the hospital after a two day stay after signing one piece of paper. In my last visit to the GP I walked out after signing one piece of paper, Both had my details recorded, but both would have used an electronic billing system which would have had them paid very quickly. I recently had both X-ray and CT within a day of referral and walked out after signing one piece of paper
we do have waiting times to see specialists here however urgent cases are handled very quickly. My son in law had an industrial accident, they had problems with his blood pressure in the ER and within a day determined he had a cancer on his adrenial gland, he was operated on two days later in a specialist oncology unit in a major city hospital and back home in a week
TUT317
Jun 17, 2012, 09:27 PM
The systems in Europe aren't all that much different from each other ....you are going to find variances even within a country..
Hi Smoothy,
I am one of these annoying Aussies who question everything. For example, "The systems in Europe aren't all that much different from each other....you are going to find variances even within a country.."
There is an obvious contradiction in your above sentence. Are they different or are they the same?
. the main point I was making, none of them are the models of perfection claimed by much of the left leaning media here in the USA who have the mindset of a bushel or crabs...( you don't need a cover as the crabs will pull any that try to climb out back in) . Where they have a mindset nobody else is entitled to something better than what THEY can get free... or a race for the bottom so to speak.
Don't remember where you live TUT, though I think you have told me in the past.
Can't disagree with what you say about the media. However, you said that European socialized medicine sucks compared to your own system. You already, say how unreliable the media can be when it comes to presenting us with information . I agree with that. You cite two examples, of different health care standards in two countries that you have experiences.
Therefore, I am still interested to know how you reached your conclusion that all European countries are the same when it comes to universal health care?
Perhaps I can make a suggestion. You disagree with it on ideological grounds. There is nothing in you posts that support that contention other than the things you mentioned. Your posts provide no tangible way of testing if European universal health services are of the same standard.
So it's an ideological objection you have?
Tut
smoothy
Jun 18, 2012, 08:11 AM
Hi Smoothy,
I am one of these annoying Aussies who question everything. For example, "The systems in Europe aren't all that much different from each other....you are going to find variances even within a country.."
There is an obvious contradiction in your above sentence. Are they different or are they the same?
Can't disagree with what you say about the media. However, you said that European socialized medicine sucks compared to your own system. You already, say how unreliable the media can be when it comes to presenting us with information . I agree with that. You cite two examples, of different health care standards in two countries that you have experiences.
Therefore, I am still interested to know how you reached your conclusion that all European countries are the same when it comes to universal health care?
Perhaps I can make a suggestion. You disagree with it on ideological grounds. There is nothing in you posts that support that contention other than the things you mentioned. Your posts provide no tangible way of testing if European universal health services are of the same standard.
So it's an ideological objection you have?
Tut
I disagree with it on every level. I also happen to think welfare should be a one year then you are out thing also...
I believe people should pay their own way... I.E. if you don't pay for something then you don't get something.
However I've also got a perspective people who have never been there themselves have...
How did I come up with the simularities among European countries... well the fact that they are next to each other and many of them have the mentality there that if someone's getting something they ought to get it too.(happens between states in the USA too)... plus there is a degree of people traveling around there in the course of doing business. Europe is physically about the same size as the USA. People thus are familiar with what their neighbors do... then you have the European Union thing too. While I have not worked in other European countries... I actually could if the opportunity came up (I have essentially immigration rights and work papers in Italy that predate the EU and are curently valid along with a taxpayer ID there, I could have dual citizenship within 6 months by asking for it). I also have a circle of long time friends that have... one of them is a practicing Doctor currently working in Florence Italy. And his rather large family have all done much volunteer work in the medical field... France being high on the list of places they were in most often. I've been good friends with them since early 1988. I still talk with him frequently. The rest of his family to various degrees as well.
So... its a mix of first hand experience... (USA and Italy) and what I've gotten from a them (Italy, and Europe).
It's a simple comparison on may things... what the Socialized system in Europe doesn't cover... (which are many things I have mentioned) that are covered or at least heavily discounted in the USA.
And as far is my first statement... its self explanitory... its like that everywhere on the planet... including the USA. Some places just don't have the same levels of service others have... I.E. your small rural places rarely have the same service quality as a major metro area would have.
I've included some much smaller more rural hospitals in my USA experiece that still exceded what you would get in a far larger Italian hospital, wasn't limited to a single hospital, comparing to THREE in Italy... all major poulation centers in their area... and five specifically in the USA... three of which are smaller, and two of which are in an Economically depressed area.
And as far as how bad the media distorts things? As bad as it might be here... its even worse other places, specificallty instances I know of In Europe...
I've actually tracted ONE specific major incident over the last 20 years ( had two friends that lost their lives in the event)... it STILL gets frequent news coverage... and still is being whitewashed... meaning I know stuff about the event that I know at least some others know as well that still never came to light. And no I'm not going to be the one that does for a number of reasons.
Now with all of that said... there is ONE thing that you can get at least in the Italian system you won't get here in the USA.
I understand that they will cover LASIK eye surgery... in fact I'm going to ask my long time Ophthalmologist over there (known him for 24 years)... never got it done there because I'm not there long enough for the fllowup visits. Or get it over here because its pretty pricey (glasses are not a huge annoyance I've worn them so long)... plus he recommended I wait a will longer as they get better at it all the time. Most of my eyewear I've had the last 24 years has come from him. Except for two pair I replaced locally because I broke them.
TUT317
Jun 18, 2012, 10:15 PM
Hi Smoothy,
Leaving the other things aside for the moment. You given an account of what you call a mix of first hand experiences. As near as I can make out you then go on to say that all of this leads us to a simple comparison of things. Can't disagree with that. In fact it is an extraordinary simple comparison. So simple that as a methodology it is of no value when it comes to comparing European countries.
What does the availability of services in the United States have to do with a comparison between European countries? Would it not be helpful to compare services between European countries?
But why have you switched to talking about services when your original statement was about systems and models of health care. Now you seem to be talking about availability of services based on geography. You have already told us about how geography plays a role in the level of services in Europe and the USA. So why have you introduced services in the equation?
Tut
paraclete
Jun 18, 2012, 11:41 PM
Its an academic argument Tut and an ideological one. smoothy is convinced the level of service in his country is superior (isn't everything in the US, except their knowledge of the other 95% of humanity). He may be right but by any measure of cost effectiveness the US fails to deliver. The most expensive system in the world that doesn't deliver to a large percentage of their population and the strange thing is they don't want to change it, when you can see them chasing cheap goods and services all over the world and beggaring their own nation in the process. If medicine could be deliverd from India they would go for it
tomder55
Jun 19, 2012, 03:01 AM
and the strange thing is they don't want to change it,
No one said that . I just don't buy into the socialized solution.
I think more free market consumer choice is the direction we should be going . You see it in services that are not traditionally covered by the insurance industry like Lasik surgery . Prices are dropping as it has become a more competitive elective procedure.
smoothy
Jun 19, 2012, 04:52 AM
its an academic argument Tut and an ideological one. smoothy is convinced the level of service in his country is superior (isn't everything in the US, except their knowledge of the other 95% of humanity). he may be right but by any measure of cost effectiveness the US fails to deliver. The most expensive system in the world that doesn't deliver to a large percentage of their population and the strange thing is they don't want to change it, when you can see them chasing cheap goods and services all over the world and beggaring their own nation in the process. if medicine could be deliverd from India they would go for it
Everyone in the USA has acess to health care in an emergency... even the cheap SOB's that refuse to make sacrifices in other areas to pay for it so they can buy less important luxuries.
The same can't be said about healthcare in other countries where if you aren't a citizen there or have money you will be refused treatment.
The claims that a large percentage of people have no acess to healthcare is pure propaganda by the people that think they should have everything for free.
The FACT is no hospital in the USA can legally turn you away from treatment if you show up in need of it.
If you want a boob job... lipsuction or a face lift... you will have to pay for that yourself... as it should be.
smoothy
Jun 19, 2012, 04:56 AM
Hi Smoothy,
Leaving the other things aside for the moment. You given an account of what you call a mix of first hand experiences. As near as I can make out you then go on to say that all of this leads us to a simple comparison of things. Can't disagree with that. In fact it is an extraordinary simple comparison. So simple that as a methodology it is of no value when it comes to comparing European countries.
What does the availability of services in the United States have to do with a comparison between European countries? Would it not be be helpful to compare services between European countries?
But why have you switched to talking about services when your original statement was about systems and models of health care. Now you seem to be talking about availability of services based on geography. You have already told us about how geography plays a role in the level of services in Europe and the USA. So why have you introduced services in the equation?
Tut
Because it IS a matter of importance when showing who's system is truly superiour. If you don't, you are comparing apples to oranges. Like compairing a KIA or a Nano to a Mercedes-Benze... they both are cars.. have four wheels an egine and doors and get you from point A to point B. What differentiates them the most beyond who builds them is what you get for your money.
What is your own personal experience with healtcare systems outside of your native country Australia?
NeedKarma
Jun 19, 2012, 05:09 AM
The FACT is no hospital in the USA can legally turn you away from treatment if you show up in need of it.So why would anyone ever need to buy medical insurance if that were the case?
paraclete
Jun 19, 2012, 05:28 AM
Yes karma it is strange so the facts on the ground might be different to the law and that would be because people are ignorant of their rights and giving you treatment then asking you to pay for it might be a different issue.
This has always been the nub of the debate level of cost and the ability to pay
TUT317
Jun 19, 2012, 05:45 AM
Because it IS a matter of importance when showing who's system is truely superiour. If you don't, you are comparing apples to oranges. Like compairing a KIA or a Nano to a Mercedes-Benze....they both are cars..have four wheels an egine and doors and get you from point A to point B. What differentiates them the most beyond who builds them is what you get for your money.
What is your own personal experience with healtcare systems outside of your native country Austrailia?
Smoothy, to date you have presented me with a hotchpotch of different ideas that have little coherency.
OK, so now we are talking about countries of the world that offer superior health care.
Just to make it clear we are no longer talking about the sameness of countries in Europe offering universal health care. Ok?
Please let's stick to one issue as long as possible and not go off onto a tangent. I'm not use to that sort of thing.
As far as superior health care is concerned I don't think there is any comparison. The U.S.A. is a long way ahead of everyone else. The more money you have to spend on health care the better the service. Would you agree or disagree with that?
In answer to your question. I have no experience of health care outside of Australia.
If I want a comparison of European health care system then I would consult scholarly articles on the subject. In doing so I would hope to look at the methodologies employed by the various studies and perhaps look at the data presented and see what (if any conclusions) I can draw.
When it comes to these matters my experience is worth about as much as the next persons. Very little.
Sorry about the tangent, but I think this is where your question is heading
Tut
TUT317
Jun 19, 2012, 06:10 AM
No one said that . I just don't buy into the socialized solution.
I think more free market consumer choice is the direction we should be going . You see it in services that are not traditionally covered by the insurance industry like Lasik surgery . Prices are dropping as it has become a more competitive elective procedure.
Tom,please spare us the invisible economic foot putting the boot into health care.
Tut
tomder55
Jun 19, 2012, 06:25 AM
The facts support my position .Competition reduces costs . Government monopolies or government supported monopolies do the reverse .
NeedKarma
Jun 19, 2012, 06:50 AM
So if one has a broken femur or a burst appendix they should start shopping for the best deal in town? It would seem to me that when one party is under emotional and physical stress then the other party has quite the unfair advantage. Will the lowest bidder have your health in the best interest?
tomder55
Jun 19, 2012, 07:10 AM
Obviously you do your shopping before you need to purchase. However , as Smoothy has pointed out already ;NO ONE is denied emergency care in this country .
Providers in competition are also being judged on the quality of their care ,as well as the price.
NeedKarma
Jun 19, 2012, 07:20 AM
However , as Smoothy has pointed out already ;NO ONE is denied emergency care in this country . So, as I asked earlier, why does one need to purchase any health care at all?
speechlesstx
Jun 19, 2012, 07:26 AM
Seems to me that the left has the idea that lowering the cost of healthcare will increase the quality of healthcare. It won't, but it will be "fair" and after all fairness is the endgame, right? I mean when faced with the facts in a 2008 debate that even though lowering the capital gains tax increased revenue Obama said he would raise it anyway "for purposes of fairness."
So who cares if we have quality health care or increased revenue or more jobs or whatever as long as everything is "fair," right?
tomder55
Jun 19, 2012, 07:27 AM
In my ideal world one would have that choice. I would advise people to get catastrophic care . But much of the costs of healthcare is wasted on services could be handled at point of service fees and negotiations between patient and provider . Given that we have this insurance system ,I would free people from the constraints of having to purchase within their state plans that are designed by the state in cooperation with the selected insurance monoplies that the state approves. Yes ,even health insurance should be subject to uncartelled competition. .
speechlesstx
Jun 19, 2012, 08:54 AM
Speaking of competition, MSNBC did a nice edit to make Romney look like he was having a Bush "scanner" moment instead showing the very valid point he was making.
JvJPG6KURV8
In reality Romney was contrasting the efficiency of the private sector to the inefficiency of the public sector.
zTrmwDmOjy4
Competition works, the government doesn't.
tomder55
Jun 19, 2012, 09:36 AM
You would think after they got caught editing the Zimmerman 9-1-1 call they'd be a little more careful.. Now she is scrambling to make a excuse for herself... No doubt she will use the Dan Rather defense (the edits could've been accurate and I believe that the story is true despite the deceptive edit) . These members of the dinosaurs haven't yet come to grips with the fact that they aren't the sole gate-keepers of "truth".
excon
Jun 19, 2012, 09:36 AM
Competition works, the government doesn't.Hello again, Steve:
I'm for that.. Who needs meat inspectors, anyway? Competition will keep 'em honest, won't it? Who needs to make sure you have clean water to drink? Nobody, that's who. Corporations wouldn't dump poisons that seep into our water supply, would they?? Competition will stop 'em, won't it?
excon
speechlesstx
Jun 19, 2012, 10:11 AM
You just jump from one straw man to another don't you, buddy? Favoring limited government is not the same as favoring no government. Now, no more diversion - what about MSNBC's flat out deception and the point Romney was making?
excon
Jun 19, 2012, 10:15 AM
what about MSNBC's flat out deception and the point Romney was making?Hello again, Steve:
The bastards... I'm a FOX guy.
excon
smoothy
Jun 19, 2012, 10:26 AM
So why would anyone ever need to buy medical insurance if that were the case?
If you want more than basic level or emergency services... you will. No different than buying a minimal level liability insurance on your can.. vs buying a full covereage plan with rental car coverage etc. You get what you pay for...
OR... getting a public defender rather than going out and hiring a really good lawyer. There are people that get upset that its not fair the guy that pays a lot for his lawyer gets a better one than the guy that gets a free one too.
Nobody can be legally turned away from an emergency room, with or without insurance. Get refused treatment and you will get rich on the lawsuit you would be winning.
And the uininsured YOUNG choose to spend their money in iphones. starbucks... and partying than buying stuff like health insurance that cuts into their descretionary spending.
NeedKarma
Jun 19, 2012, 10:27 AM
If you want more than emergency level services....you will.What's the definition of "emergency level services"? Is there a policy statement link somewhere?
Wondergirl
Jun 19, 2012, 10:30 AM
If you want more than emergency level services....you will.
Our insurance-less library homeless guy had a bad case of cellulitis (skin infection), went to the ER, and was admitted to that hospital for IV treatment. After a week or so of that, he was transferred to an area rehab facility where he stayed for about four weeks. He told me he was always treated well by medical staff.
NeedKarma
Jun 19, 2012, 10:33 AM
Cool. I guess there really isn't a problem in the US.
So how does the hospital get paid for the homeless guy's treatment?
smoothy
Jun 19, 2012, 10:36 AM
What's the definition of "emergency level services"? Is there a policy statement link somewhere?
Read wondergirls response.. as that is really quite broad...
If your Canadian system was so wonderful and perfect... why do you have waiting lists for everything... (organ transplants are exempted from this argument for obvious reasons).
After all... remember your Prime Minister came to the US for surgery rather than use the Canadian system remember.
smoothy
Jun 19, 2012, 10:38 AM
Cool. I guess there really isn't a problem in the US.
So how does the hospital get paid for the homeless guy's treatment?
Taxpayers and people with insurance bear the burden of their lack of responsibility.
Who pays for everything in Canada? You didn't think it was really free did you?
NeedKarma
Jun 19, 2012, 10:42 AM
Who pays for everything in Canada? You didn't think it was really free did you?That's quite an ignorant statement. We all know how our system works... except for you I guess.
NeedKarma
Jun 19, 2012, 10:46 AM
If your Canadian system was so wonderful and perfect... why do you have waiting lists for everything... (organ transplants are exempted from this argument for obvious reasons).
That's everywhere. Did you miss this post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/hope-change-670749-6.html#post3156420):
In my area of the East Coast, it takes 2 months to get an appt. with most specialists, even when I lied and told them I was severely ill
There isn't a 1 to 1 ratio of equipment to patients.
Wondergirl
Jun 19, 2012, 10:48 AM
So how does the hospital get paid for the homeless guy's treatment?
Medicaid kicked in. Who pays so that Medicaid exists?
Wondergirl
Jun 19, 2012, 10:51 AM
In my area of the East Coast, it takes 2 months to get an appt. with most specialists, even when I lied and told them I was severely ill
There isn't a 1 to 1 ratio of equipment to patients.
Move to Chicago. If I have a legitimate problem, my primary doctor can get me an appointment with a specialist in snappy-foo time.
smoothy
Jun 19, 2012, 10:53 AM
That's everywhere. Did you miss this post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/hope-change-670749-6.html#post3156420):
There isn't a 1 to 1 ratio of equipment to patients.
Its not everywhere... I'm not talking making an appointment for a routine checkup, I'm talking about things that need taking care of... if you are sick today... they don't make you wait a week to see a doctor... If you need a hip replacement you don't get put on a 6+ month waiting list to get one... If you need a pacemaker.. you don't get put on a waiting list to get one if you live longer enough... you get them in a matter of days (if not sooner) assuming there isn't a active infection or a medical reason the requires a delay. Not unheard of with hip related issues as one exaple I am using.
smoothy
Jun 19, 2012, 10:54 AM
That's everywhere. Did you miss this post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/hope-change-670749-6.html#post3156420):
There isn't a 1 to 1 ratio of equipment to patients.
Its not everywhere... I'm not talking making an appointment for a routine checkup, I'm talking about things that need taking care of... if you are sick today... they don't make you wait a week to see a doctor... If you need a hip replacement you don't get put on a 6+ month waiting list to get one... If you need a pacemaker.. you don't get put on a waiting list to get one if you live long enough... you get them in a matter of days (if not sooner) assuming there isn't a active infection or a medical reason the requires a delay. Not unheard of with hip related issues as one exaple I am using.
I've lived and visited in three states on the east coast and doctors and hospitals in them in my 50 years walking this earth ( not counting the District of Columbia). And I've not had to wait ever in the number of times I've needed to see a doctor at a private practice or when I walked into the emergency room in all that time. And by wait... since some people like to parse words... I mean more than an hour or two wait. Not days... not weeks... and certainly not months for real medical issues. But making appointments for routine annual physicalls etc.(non-urgent medical issues) for a future date are not uncommon anywhere.
And the post you mentioned is obvious they are a member of a crappy HMO plan which is one step better than socialised medicine... you get what you pay for. You don't get a Mercedes if all you are willing to pay for is a KIA.
NeedKarma
Jun 19, 2012, 10:55 AM
Move to Chicago. If I have a legitimate problem, my primary doctor can get me an appointment with a specialist in snappy-foo time.
I had the same excellent service when I had a meniscus problem. My doc got me an MRI right away.
speechlesstx
Jun 19, 2012, 02:43 PM
Glad you get excellent care, NK.
Medical wait times worsening in some provinces: report (http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Health/20120619/medical-wait-times-report-120619/#ixzz1yHGDUJYj)
The Canadian Press
Date: Tuesday Jun. 19, 2012 2:06 PM ET
OTTAWA After several years of progress, it appears some provinces are slipping in their quest to reduce the time it takes to receive a number of benchmark medical treatments.
Part of the slide can be attributed to hospitals being overcrowded by elderly patients with dementia -- a problem that can only get worse as the population ages, said a report from the Wait Times Alliance issued Tuesday.
"Canada needs a national dementia strategy that formally integrates the functions of primary care, specialist care and home-care services with a strong focus on keeping seniors in the community, out of the ED (emergency department) and out of hospital," the alliance recommended in its 2012 report.
The report showed a decline in performance for patients receiving care in the five government-identified priority areas -- diagnostic imaging, hip and knee replacement, radiation for cancer, cataract surgery and heart bypass surgery.
Prince Edward Island received an F for knee replacements and a D for hip replacements.
Manitoba earned a D for hip and knee replacements and cataract surgery.
Ontario scored the best with As across the board and no significant changes in wait times.
"Unlike the past several years, the 2012 results show a worsening of performance with regard to patients receiving care within the pan-Canadian benchmarks set by governments," said the report.
"Although some provinces have shown improvement, the overall results point toward lengthier waits."
What's worse is that most of the figures compiled by the alliance only relate to specialist care and don't account for the time it takes to see a general practitioner or to have medical tests completed after visiting the doctor.
In its contribution to the report, the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology concluded that wait times for so-called GI procedures are up significantly in the last seven years.
"Total wait times for Canadians, considering all gastroenterology indications, have increased from 2005 to 2012 and are now 30 days longer than they were in 2005," the association said in an email.
The total wait time for a person seeking a colonoscopy, for example, is 279 days. The target wait time for the procedure is 60 days.
In another paper released Tuesday, the MacDonald-Laurier Institute called on Ottawa to reform the Canada Health Act to allow for extra-billing by doctors and experimentation by the provinces with for-profit medicare.
The paper entitled, First, Do No Harm: How the Canada Health Act Obstructs Reform and Innovation, urges the federal government to remove what it calls the "shackles" the act imposes on health care.
Serious reform can be achieved while retaining the core principles of universality and portability now found in the act, said authors Jason Clemens and Nadeem Esmail.
"In order for Canada to proceed with serious, positive, health-care reform, the CHA must be revised," they concluded.
The paper compares Canada's medicare system with those in other developed nations that provide universal health care.
Among the differences they found were that "all other universal health-care countries allow private, parallel, health care, where patients can choose to purchase health-care services outside of the public system."
A large majority of those same countries allow for delivery of universal care through privately owned and operated surgical facilities and hospitals.
The Liberals pointed to the alliance's report as confirmation that the country's health-care delivery problems are systemic and underscore a need for federal leadership to reform the system.
"Canadians are concerned about what this Conservative government's lack of leadership means for the future of their universal health-care system," Liberal health critic Hedy Fry said in a statement.
"It is time that Stephen Harper stops shirking his responsibilities and convenes a meeting with first ministers to renegotiate the (2004) health accord, instead of leaving the provinces to fend for themselves."
Report Card on Wait Times in Canada (.pdf) (http://www.waittimealliance.ca/media/2012reportcard/WTA2012-reportcard_e.pdf)
Apparently it's not so great for others and this is not the first call to expand on private healthcare in your country. 279 days for a colonoscopy, let's hope you don't have colon cancer during that wait.
NeedKarma
Jun 19, 2012, 02:56 PM
Once my doc ordered it I had my preventative one 3 weeks later. Now it's every 3 years. No, I don't pay a cent nor is there any paperwork. Yes I know it comes off our paycheck.
There are horror stories in the US as well as you know, should we focus on the bad? That seems to be your forte.
paraclete
Jun 19, 2012, 04:22 PM
In my country we know that relying solely on the "system" could be a death sentence in some instances so we have a two tier system where private insurance is available to enable access to the private hospital system at affordable cost. It is structured so that if you have private insurance you don't have to pay the 1.5% tax levy for the coverage the government provides.
This enables the low risk people to run the gauntlet but they can't opt out of paying something which provides access to the public benefits system. The main point here is that no citizen is without medical expense coverage for essential procedures
speechlesstx
Jun 19, 2012, 05:25 PM
Once my doc ordered it I had my preventative one 3 weeks later. Now it's every 3 years. No, I don't pay a cent nor is there any paperwork. Yes I know it comes off our paycheck.
There are horror stories in the US as well as you know, should we focus on the bad? That seems to be your forte.
I'm sorry but that's your forte. That and distraction, you always have a lame response to your system's failures. Like I said, I'm glad you got excellent care but your system isn't quite so glorious for everyone else. But feel free to find where it takes someone 279 days to get a colonoscpy here and explain the need for more private care in Canada.
NeedKarma
Jun 19, 2012, 07:22 PM
Nah, I dwell on the positive in my life, I don't seek out everything that's wrong. That for you guys to do in the Current Events board.
TUT317
Jun 20, 2012, 02:52 AM
Seems to me that the left has the idea that lowering the cost of healthcare will increase the quality of healthcare.
I certainly have never claimed this.
It won't, but it will be "fair" and after all fairness is the endgame, right? I mean when faced with the facts in a 2008 debate that even though lowering the capital gains tax increased revenue Obama said he would raise it anyway "for purposes of fairness."
Not really there are many endgames as you call them when it comes to fairness and equity. I will gives examples a bit later.
For the moment you are providing a false analogy. The analogy falls down because there is no single property of fairness that can be equally applied across different categories (health care and tax) for the following reason.
There are a number of properties that characterize fairness and equity when applied to the health care industry. Equity of good health is something that ought to be encouraged. So it is fair and reasonable that poor people should not suffer from common diseases and complaints associated with belonging to a particular racial and/or socio-economic group. Especially since such diseases may well be less common in more affluent groups. In my country diabetes would be an example.
It is not fair on the individual suffering from the disease to have to continually seek treatment? It is not fair on the medical system (private or universal) that we should have to keep paying for a chronic problem that could have been prevented?
So who cares if we have quality health care or increased revenue or more jobs or whatever as long as everything is "fair," right?
Again, not really As I said,there are many different aspects of fairness when applied to health care. Fairness is not an absolute there are many particular instances of how things can be fair and equitable.
Tut
TUT317
Jun 20, 2012, 03:58 AM
The facts support my position .Competition reduces costs . Government monopolies or government supported monopolies do the reverse .
Hi Tom,
Do you mean like the availability of certain types of medicines when there is no market for them?
Tut
tomder55
Jun 20, 2012, 04:13 AM
It is amazing how the rare exception is used as an example to refute the rule. Yes there is a need for some incentives to induce R & D ;so there is a role for the government in the development and price support for orphan drugs .
But then again ,neither Speech or I are speaking in absolutes. When we speak of limited government we are not speaking of no government.. Maybe I should add that as a caveat in all my comments so I don't have to address the strawmen .
What I'm saying is the common ailments and medical services can easily be handled in a free market,consumer choice environment .
TUT317
Jun 20, 2012, 04:30 AM
It is amazing how the rare exception is used as an example to refute the rule. Yes there is a need for some incentives to induce R & D ;so there is a role for the government in the development and price support for orphan drugs .
But then again ,neither Speech or I are speaking in absolutes. When we speak of limited government we are not speaking of no government .. Maybe I should add that as a caveat in all my comments so I don't have to address the strawmen .
What I'm saying is the common ailments and medical services can easily be handled in a free market,consumer choice environment .
Hi again Tom,
What straw man? What absolutes? I was asking a question. Thanks for the answer.
Tut
tomder55
Jun 20, 2012, 04:51 AM
Hi again Tom,
What straw man? What absolutes? I was asking a question. Thanks for the answer.
Tut
The same ones that had Ex comment earlier :
I'm for that.. Who needs meat inspectors, anyway? Competition will keep 'em honest, won't it? Who needs to make sure you have clean water to drink? Nobody, that's who. Corporations wouldn't dump poisons that seep into our water supply, would they?? Competition will stop 'em, won't it?
TUT317
Jun 20, 2012, 05:29 AM
The same ones that had Ex comment earlier :
Hi Tom,
That's good for Ex, but I am not Ex. I didn't read his earlier comments.
Tut
tomder55
Jun 20, 2012, 05:37 AM
So you don't think that the orphan drug and orphan disease is the rare exception to the rule ?
TUT317
Jun 20, 2012, 05:51 AM
so you don't think that the orphan drug and orphan disease is the rare exception to the rule ?
I don't know. I'd have to Google it and get back to you
speechlesstx
Jun 20, 2012, 06:22 AM
I certainly have never claimed this.
Not really there are many endgames as you call them when it comes to fairness and equity. I will gives examples a bit later.
For the moment you are providing a false analogy. The analogy falls down because there is no single property of fairness that can be equally applied across different categories (health care and tax) for the following reason.
There are a number of properties that characterize fairness and equity when applied to the health care industry. Equity of good health is something that ought to be encouraged. So it is fair and reasonable that poor people should not suffer from common diseases and complaints associated with belonging to a particular racial and/or socio-economic group. Especially since such diseases may well be less common in more affluent groups. In my country diabetes would be an example.
It is not fair on the individual suffering from the disease to have to continually seek treatment? It is not fair on the medical system (private or universal) that we should have to keep paying for a chronic problem that could have been prevented?
Again, not really As I said,there are many different aspects of fairness when applied to health care. Fairness is not an absolute there are many particular instances of how things can be fair and equitable.
Tut
All of my comments were directed at this country's liberals, and were spot on.
speechlesstx
Jun 20, 2012, 06:31 AM
Nah, I dwell on the positive in my life, I don't seek out everything that's wrong. That for you guys to do in the Current Events board.
Dude, you continue to tout the excellence of Canadian healthcare while ignoring the fact that many in your country suffer because of it. Someone has to raise awareness about there plight since you won't.
excon
Jun 20, 2012, 06:37 AM
What I'm saying is the common ailments and medical services can easily be handled in a free market,consumer choice environment .Hello again, tom:
It looks like the American people don't agree with you. This morning's Bloomberg poll (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/06/bloomberg-poll-obama-up-big-bain-debate-up-for-grabs-126719.html)shows Obama UP BIG!
excon
tomder55
Jun 20, 2012, 07:21 AM
Yeah ,love the approval rating on issues of jobs ,the economy ,and the budget . Basically he's done a good job wacking terrorists
http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/rQyA68BW5P20
Also of those interviewed ,only 73% say they are likely voters. Not that I trust polling data too much ;but if I was running a pre-election poll,I would only count likely voters.
speechlesstx
Jun 20, 2012, 07:38 AM
That's just the Bradley Effect anyway. With people like Sam Donaldson calling others racist (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/06/17/don-lemon-agrees-sam-donaldson-about-conservatives-opposing-obama-sim) for daring to disagree with a black man's politics you can't blame folks for not wanting to appear racist.
I get it though, the Democrats top priority is re-electing Obama, the country, its citizens and any hint of racial harmony be damned.
NeedKarma
Jun 20, 2012, 07:43 AM
I get it though, the Democrats top priority is re-electing Obama,
The only purpose of a political party is to gain power ;to win elections and to get their agenda enacted.
tomder55
Jun 20, 2012, 08:02 AM
Yeah ;but Sam Donaldson prides himself as being an unbiased gate-keeper of the dinosaur media. He'll have to put down his pom poms 1st .
speechlesstx
Jun 20, 2012, 08:42 AM
The only purpose of a political party is to gain power ;to win elections and to get their agenda enacted.
So it no longer bothers you that the GOP's top priority is to make Obama a one term president. Cool.
excon
Jun 20, 2012, 08:49 AM
So it no longer bothers you that the GOP's top priority is to make Obama a one term president. Cool.Hello again, Steve:
You're missing something here... You got what the PARTY is about, but you miss what the CONGRESS is about. Don't worry. Your Republican brethren agree with you.. Governing be damned.. Let's get rid of the black guy, I mean commie socialist. I'm sorry. I mean Muslim Kenyon anti-colonial, anchor baby..
excon
NeedKarma
Jun 20, 2012, 09:03 AM
So it no longer bothers you that the GOP's top priority is to make Obama a one term president. Cool.Just echoing what you guys say:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/gops-top-priority-670456.html#post3151711
speechlesstx
Jun 20, 2012, 09:12 AM
Yes I know, you tend to avoid trying to share an original thought.
NeedKarma
Jun 20, 2012, 09:14 AM
You mean by reading right-wing blogs and reposting their stuff here? Yea, I don't do that. I have a life.
speechlesstx
Jun 20, 2012, 09:14 AM
Hello again, Steve:
You're missing something here... You got what the PARTY is about, but you miss what the CONGRESS is about. Don't worry. Your Republican brethren agree with you.. Governing be damned.. Let's get rid of the black guy, I mean commie socialist. I'm sorry. I mean Muslim Kenyon anti-colonial, anchor baby..
excon
The words you're looking for are "incompetent boob."
speechlesstx
Jun 20, 2012, 09:22 AM
You mean by reading right-wing blogs and reposting their stuff here? Yea, I don't do that. I have a life.
That's because you're what, 12 years old?
Yes thanks to the wonderful care you get at the expense of others you do have a life. But don't worry, you'll be like the UK in no time...
Top doctor's chilling claim: The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-chilling-claim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html#ixzz1yLouVAAt)
smoothy
Jun 20, 2012, 09:24 AM
And the liberals everywhere are trying to make... Logans Run... and 1984 into reality.
NeedKarma
Jun 20, 2012, 09:38 AM
That's because you're what, 12 years old?
Yes thanks to the wonderful care you get at the expense of others you do have a life. But don't worry, you'll be like the UK in no time...You keep calling me 12 years old, not sure why, I think you're trying to insult me somehow.
Anyway Canadians love their healthcare system. They are quite proud of it. Funny how you don't see them starting threads here about how messed up it is. Plus you rarely see any canucks in the Health and Wellness threads asking medical questions because they can't afford healthcare; imagine trying to get medical help from anonymous internet people.
But you can keep trying to make others feel bad about what they have. It's more telling about the poster than the content they are posting.
speechlesstx
Jun 20, 2012, 10:46 AM
But you can keep trying to make others feel bad about what they have. It's more telling about the poster than the content they are posting.
Is the word 'truth' foreign and/or irrelevant to you?
NeedKarma
Jun 20, 2012, 10:53 AM
Is the word 'truth' foreign and/or irrelevant to you?
It seems to be for you. ;-)
speechlesstx
Jun 20, 2012, 11:18 AM
And that's why I ask if you're 12.
NeedKarma
Jun 20, 2012, 11:21 AM
Because I echoed exactly what you said? LOL. It's OK for you but not for others? Do as I say not as I do? I think you know what that's called.
speechlesstx
Jun 20, 2012, 11:35 AM
At least it isn't called puerile.
TUT317
Jun 20, 2012, 08:57 PM
All of my comments were directed at this country's liberals, and were spot on.
If you say so I am happy to take your word for it.
It's just that you are wrong in your assessment of fairness and how I can and should be applied.
Tut
TUT317
Jun 21, 2012, 05:04 AM
so you don't think that the orphan drug and orphan disease is the rare exception to the rule ?
I think they are an exception going on the wikipedia article. I wouldn't go as far as to say they are a rare exception.
Tut
tomder55
Jun 21, 2012, 05:17 AM
I don't know what Speech said about fairness . What I think whenever I hear it used in a political context is someone picking someone else's pocket (when their pocket is empty ,fairness is achieved ) ;or bringing standards down to the lowest common denominator . When it comes to free speech it means suppressing opposition ability to express their view. When it comes to fairness for immigrants in means favoring the illegal over the ones who played by the rules . When it comes to a fair 'choice' it means a mother has a right to choose to kill her baby ;but not to choose where the kid gets an education .
But you have made an important observation. Fairness is in the eye of the beholder . That gives the Levithian the power to define fairness if you are one who favors such forms of government .
tomder55
Jun 21, 2012, 05:19 AM
I think they are an exception going on the wikipedia article. I wouldn't go as far as to say they are a rare exception.
Tut
But that is the example you presented .
Hi Tom,
Do you mean like the availability of certain types of medicines when there is no market for them?
TUT317
Jun 21, 2012, 05:31 AM
But that is the example you presented .
Sorry a misunderstanding here.
I mean they are an exception. Not doubting that. By rare exception I was referring to other possible exceptions such as the impact market forces might have on the cost of health insurance. Just as an example.
Tut
TUT317
Jun 21, 2012, 05:37 AM
I don't know what Speech said about fairness . What I think whenever I hear it used in a political context is someone picking someone elses pocket (when their pocket is empty ,fairness is acheived ) ;or bringing standards down to the lowest common denominator . When it comes to free speech it means suppressing opposition ability to express their view. When it comes to fairness for immigrants in means favoring the illegal over the ones who played by the rules . When it comes to a fair 'choice' it means a mother has a right to choose to kill her baby ;but not to choose where the kid gets an education .
But you have made an important observation. Fairness is in the eye of the beholder . That gives the Levithian the power to define fairness if you are one who favors such forms of government .
Tom, this is rather a cynical view. Perhaps you should come and visit the Leviathan down under.
Tut
tomder55
Jun 21, 2012, 05:39 AM
Oh ; you did say medicines . As for heath insurance ;I've already addressed that I think the more an insurance company has to compete for the consumer ,that pricing should reduce. There are many innovations in services that they aren't permitted by law to implement . We are generally restricted to purchasing state approved minimum coverage plans that employers provide. We are not permitted to shop around to get the best deal possible . That to me is a weakness in the system that keeps prices high.
paraclete
Jun 21, 2012, 06:47 AM
yes Tom vested interests have been very successful in gaming the market, obviously your theory has too few variables and you have imperfect competition or is it monopolistic competition
tomder55
Jun 21, 2012, 07:14 AM
I've said it before. We have state approved cartels. Part of the unintended consequences of over regulation is that it's designed to stifle competition.
speechlesstx
Jun 21, 2012, 07:17 AM
If you say so I am happy to take your word for it.
It's just that you are wrong in your assessment of fairness and how I can and should be applied.
Tut
No, I know what fairness is, "free from bias or injustice; evenhandedness."
There is nothing "fair" about taking from one person to give to someone else. All the things tom mentioned are a part of this country's left wing concept of "fairness" and it's anything but. Fairness to them is just one more deceptive clichι. And I know I'm right, thank you very much.
excon
Jun 21, 2012, 07:42 AM
There is nothing "fair" about taking from one person to give to someone else. Fairness to them is just one more deceptive cliche. And I know I'm right, thank you very much.Hello again, Steve:
No, you're wrong. But, your position IS representative of how far off the cliff the right wing has gone. You used to be a regular conservative. Now, it looks like you drank the koolaid.
There was a time when even conservatives thought that building roads and bridges was good for ALL of us... Now you think it's thievery.
excon
speechlesstx
Jun 21, 2012, 07:53 AM
Hello again, Steve:
No, you're wrong. But, your position IS representative of how far off the cliff the right wing has gone. You used to be a regular conservative. Now, it looks like you drank the koolaid.
There was a time when even conservatives thought that building roads and bridges was good for ALL of us... Now you think it's thievery.
excon
You know, buddy, we could discuss this if you'd base your arguments in reality. I have no need to defend myself against your manufactured nonsense. My definition of fair is correct.
tomder55
Jun 21, 2012, 08:13 AM
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution did not make road building a federal function. I'm all for roads and bridges ;but they should be properly funded by the proper authority .That is why the Erie Canal was built with State and private funds and not Federal funds. There was no doubt that it would benefit the economy and commerce of the nation when it was built. But James Madison properly vetoed Federal funding for the project .
His veto is worth reading in total
James Madison: Veto of federal public works bill, March 3, 1817 (http://constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm)
Wondergirl
Jun 21, 2012, 08:17 AM
There was a time when even conservatives thought that building roads and bridges was good for ALL of us... Now you think it's thievery.
Dear excon:
Aren't interstates federally funded? Or should each state be responsible for its section of an interstate? (Heaven help us all!)
Carol
smoothy
Jun 21, 2012, 08:34 AM
You know, buddy, we could discuss this if you'd base your arguments in reality. I have no need to defend myself against your manufactured nonsense. My definition of fair is correct.
Just like the 47% that pay no federal taxes feeling its FAIR they aren't paying them flapping their gums about how the 53% of us thatactually ARE aren't giving THEM enough free stuff or paying enough... from what WE actually earn...
What's fair is everyone paying an equal percentage of their income... whatever that ammounts to. Without deductions.. without breaks... but then THEY would have to pay something themselves so they don't like that idea.
tomder55
Jun 21, 2012, 08:38 AM
The Interstate system was justified as a national defense expense. It was originally called " .National Defense Highways"Ike wanted a national road system wide enough to transport the military . During the cold war ,that was enough of an argument to grant it on very shaky constitutional rationale .There is also clauses in the Constitution about Congress having the authority to authorize "Post Roads" .
Today Federal Funding for the roads is a massive earmark boondoggle. More money goes into special interest pockets than asphalt.
excon
Jun 21, 2012, 08:46 AM
More money goes into special interest pockets than asphalt.Hello again, tom:
Kind of like the cash that's going into Chris Kristy's friends pocket from his privately run half way houses.. (http://gothamist.com/2012/06/17/gov_christie_thinks_dangerous_porou.php)
excon
tomder55
Jun 21, 2012, 09:04 AM
I have no idea how that connects to Federal funding of roads . I get it that the Interstate has been funded through Federal taxes and administered through the Federal Highway Administration ;and it's too late to put the horse back in the barn. But the problem is that every authorization expands the bureaucracies power and mandate. Now highway funds is the answer for such boondoggles as high speed rail systems . Already 1/4 of the highway funds are spent on non highway programs. And if Obama has his way, the program will double in size.
And that only addresses the Interstate system . The Federal government has no business funding or authorizing State and local systems . Too often they have been lured by federal funds to do unwise infrastructure projects . When the gravy train stops ,they have no means to complete them or to maintain them. If Boston wants a tunnel ;or California wants high speed rail ,let them fund it .
Wondergirl
Jun 21, 2012, 09:22 AM
If Boston wants a tunnel ;or California wants high speed rail ,let them fund it .
What if Illinois wants a high-speed-rail system to the eastern states? All involved states--except for Indiana--agree such a system would be good and will pay their share of building one. Then what?
speechlesstx
Jun 21, 2012, 09:37 AM
Dear excon:
Aren't interstates federally funded? or should each state be responsible for its section of an interstate? (Heaven help us all!)
Carol
I have never seen a federal truck working on our interstates but I see TXDOT trucks every day. Likewise in every other state I've traveled.
speechlesstx
Jun 21, 2012, 09:38 AM
What if Illinois wants a high-speed-rail system to the eastern states? All involved states--except for Indiana--agree such a system would be good and will pay their share of building one. Then what?
Oh well, C'est la vie.
tomder55
Jun 21, 2012, 09:52 AM
What if Illinois wants a high-speed-rail system to the eastern states? All involved states--except for Indiana--agree such a system would be good and will pay their share of building one. Then what?
Ok I'll address the hypothetical . I don't think Indiana should be forced to have that high speed rail if it doesn't want it.
smoothy
Jun 21, 2012, 10:15 AM
What if Illinois wants a high-speed-rail system to the eastern states? All involved states--except for Indiana--agree such a system would be good and will pay their share of building one. Then what?
They get together with each of the states it goes through... and they all make plans and agreements and pay their share of the design... and everything that happens inside their borders. Federal involvement isn't needed.
Wondergirl
Jun 21, 2012, 10:19 AM
They get together with each of the states it goes through...and they all make plans and agreements and pay their share of the design...and everything that happens inside their borders. Federal involvement isn't needed.
Indiana says no, no money for this.
smoothy
Jun 21, 2012, 10:29 AM
Indiana says no, no money for this.Then it doesn't happen... because Florida shouldn't be forced to pay for it because Indiana doesn't want to find the money to build, maintain or operate it.
I left out one part in my answer that an Authority be set up with representatives from each state to run it. Not unlike how The Metro works as its in parts of DC MD and the District of Columbia.
speechlesstx
Jun 21, 2012, 10:43 AM
Is there some market demand for high speed rail?
Wondergirl
Jun 21, 2012, 10:44 AM
Is there some market demand for high speed rail?
Then think interstate. What if Indiana didn't want one to go through their state?
tomder55
Jun 21, 2012, 10:47 AM
No ,rail is a loser in this country . Amtrak loses $32 per passenger on average .
Wondergirl
Jun 21, 2012, 10:48 AM
No ,rail is a loser in this country . Amtrak loses $32 per passenger on average .
Those are customer service and marketing problems.
smoothy
Jun 21, 2012, 10:50 AM
Don't think so... their service is actually quite good, I've used it a few times... there just isn't enough people that need to travel on it to be profitable.
speechlesstx
Jun 21, 2012, 10:54 AM
Those are customer service and marketing problems.
I don't think so. Does that also explain why LA has the best subway system in the world that Nobody uses?
tomder55
Jun 21, 2012, 10:54 AM
What if Illinois wants a high-speed-rail system to the eastern states?can't find a link to this proposal . Which states are involved ?
tomder55
Jun 21, 2012, 10:55 AM
Even the NE corridor of AMTRAK barely pulls it's weight ;and that is the heaviest travelled corridor... and that is only because the price of the Acela express fare is in line with market pricing. .
Wondergirl
Jun 21, 2012, 11:03 AM
can't find a link to this proposal . Which states are involved ?
It's hypothetical -- suggested when everyone claimed it should be a state's-rights issue, not federal.
tomder55
Jun 21, 2012, 11:08 AM
Oh I see . Because there are real proposals between Michigan ,Illinois ,and Indiana where the states are doing something similar to what Smoothy suggest correctly is the proper way to handle it . Here in NY there are frequent examples of intrastate systems (the Port Authority being the most famous) .
TUT317
Jun 21, 2012, 11:23 PM
No, I know what fairness is, "free from bias or injustice; evenhandedness."
There is nothing "fair" about taking from one person to give to someone else. All the things tom mentioned are a part of this country's left wing concept of "fairness" and it's anything but. Fairness to them is just one more deceptive cliche. And I know I'm right, thank you very much.
Sorry Steve, this is not right. It is my assessment of fairness that is
Spot on. On the other hand, it could be that we experience a difference type of fairness here.
Tut
speechlesstx
Jun 22, 2012, 06:26 AM
Sorry Tut, but this just baffles me. I gave a dictionary definition of fairness. What's incorrect about it?
TUT317
Jun 22, 2012, 07:45 AM
Sorry Tut, but this just baffles me. I gave a dictionary definition of fairness. What's incorrect about it?
A very good question. Glad you asked it.
The way I see it is that words such as 'fair' will always be an open question. We can use a dictionary to break down a concept into further concepts. Naturally this is what a dictionary does.
The other possibility, and the one I think mostly applies to words such as 'fair' is to apply them to actual situations. In other words, to see how they stand in relations to such things as law, politics, health, etc.
The mistake everyone makes (including myself) is that when we apply it to concrete or actual situations we cannot help but make value judgements which distract from the actual state of affairs. What we do is create an idealized understanding of what the word fair means.
We make the ideal fit what is actually happening. This is basically the problem with idealism. It takes on a reality of its own and becomes the lens we look at things through.
We mistakenly believe that we can intuitively grasp the essence of fairness. Another way of saying it would be that fairness is mind dependent but reality independent.
You and I are looking at fairness through different lenses that is why we see two different things. To be perfectly honest, we are both right and both wrong. This is why fairness will always be an open question.
Tut
Wondergirl
Jun 22, 2012, 07:56 AM
No, I know what fairness is, "free from bias or injustice; evenhandedness."
There is nothing "fair" about taking from one person to give to someone else.
I was always taught that fairness is sharing and playing on a level field. If I have a cookie and my sister doesn't, to be fair, I break it and give half to her. In fact, if the cookie breaks badly, it would be a very kind thing for me to give her the larger half. Injustice would be if I would eat the whole cookie in front of her (and gloat in her misery).
speechlesstx
Jun 22, 2012, 08:03 AM
A while ago you said "this is not right" concerning my view of fairness. So now I'm kind of right?
I get that fairness is difficult to quantify, but as the quote by Brooks in my signature implies it should be quite obvious that "spreading money around by force" is "an odd definition of fairness." And that's my point.
Wondergirl
Jun 22, 2012, 08:08 AM
A while ago you said "this is not right" concerning my view of fairness. So now I'm kind of right?
I get that fairness is difficult to quantify, but as the quote by Brooks in my signature implies it should be quite obvious that "spreading money around by force" is "an odd definition of fairness." And that's my point.
So if my mom had taken my cookie over my objections and broken it in half and given a piece to me and one to my sister, that wouldn't have been fair? What would have been the secondary gain?
smoothy
Jun 22, 2012, 08:08 AM
Fair... is having a chance at earning something for yourself... not expecting someone that already DID work for it to hand half or any of it over to you...
Is it fair to mow your entire yard then have your lazy neighbor demand you mow their yard too because they don't feel like breaking a sweat. Even though they have a brand new mower in the garage they don't want to wear out.
Wondergirl
Jun 22, 2012, 08:10 AM
Fair...is having a chance at earning something for yourself....not expecting someone that already DID work for it to hand half or any of it over to you...
Is it fair to mow your entire yard then have your lazy neighbor demand you mow their yard too because they don't feel like breaking a sweat.
What if a third neighbor tells you that the neighbor with the uncut lawn has a broken leg?
tomder55
Jun 22, 2012, 08:14 AM
Then said neighbor should pay for the lawn care .
speechlesstx
Jun 22, 2012, 08:15 AM
I was always taught that fairness is sharing and playing on a level field. If I have a cookie and my sister doesn't, to be fair, I break it and give half to her. In fact, if the cookie breaks badly, it would be a very kind thing for me to give her the larger half. Injustice would be if I would eat the whole cookie in front of her (and gloat in her misery).
That wouldn't be injustice, that would just be mean. You aren't entitled to a cookie, you can't compel me to share my cookie and taking my cookie from me and giving it to another is hardly fair, it's my cookie.
Wondergirl
Jun 22, 2012, 08:18 AM
That wouldn't be injustice, that would just be mean. You aren't entitled to a cookie, you can't compel me to share my cookie and taking my cookie from me and giving it to another is hardly fair, it's my cookie.
So being your sister doesn't entitle me? And how will I feel about you then?
What if I have the cookie and you want some and I walk away munching the cookie? Will you be okay with that?
speechlesstx
Jun 22, 2012, 08:35 AM
So if my mom had taken my cookie over my objections and broken it in half and given a piece to me and one to my sister, that wouldn't have been fair? What would have been the secondary gain?
You were speaking in your mom's world but I was speaking as an adult. Your mom probably gave you the cookie and she's your mom so you should do what mom says.
As an adult I have five siblings and none of them are entitled to my cookie. They have a job, they have money, they've earned the right and the means to buy their own cookies which I'm not entitled to. And when we want to we'll all gladly share our cookies, not by compulsion but out of compassion and care which is the principle your mom was trying to teach you I would hope.
excon
Jun 22, 2012, 08:37 AM
That wouldn't be injustice, that would just be mean. You aren't entitled to a cookie, you can't compel me to share my cookie and taking my cookie from me and giving it to another is hardly fair, it's my cookie.Hello again, Steve:
You're describing socialism.. We don't HAVE socialism.. I know that what's you're being told, but it ain't so.
We don't take from the haves to give to the have nots because we want to make it "fair". We take from the haves so that the poor don't starve and the elderly have a home. We ALSO take from the haves so you'll have a road to drive on.
Now, if you want to discuss the way it IS, we can. But, I'm not going to entertain your fantasy.
excon
speechlesstx
Jun 22, 2012, 08:38 AM
So being your sister doesn't entitle me? And how will I feel about you then?
Heck no, no more than I'm entitled to your things.
What if I have the cookie and you want some and I walk away munching the cookie? Will you be okay with that?
It's your cookie, why should I care what you do with it? If I want one bad enough I'll get my own.
speechlesstx
Jun 22, 2012, 08:42 AM
Hello again, Steve:
You're describing socialism.. We don't HAVE socialism.. I know that what's you're being told, but it ain't so.
We don't take from the haves to give to the have nots because we want to make it "fair". We take from the haves so that the poor don't starve and the elderly have a home. We ALSO take from the haves so you'll have a road to drive on.
Now, if you wanna discuss the way it IS, we can. But, I'm not gonna entertain your fantasy.
excon
Let's see, you MIGHT vote for Romney but you fear what would happen because of all those radical right-wing judges he would appoint. You IMAGINE I'm being told we're now Socialists. Apparently you have no problem entertaining fantasies.
smoothy
Jun 22, 2012, 09:11 AM
What if a third neighbor tells you that the neighbor with the uncut lawn has a broken leg?
I'd ask that third neighbor why they didn't do it... no neighbor is OBLIGATED to do it free... the person with the broken leg could pay a number of lawn services to do it... assuming they don't have a wife or kids that are each fully capable of doing it if they got up from in front of the TV.
A neighbor might do it if that other neighbor is friendly with them... but they aren't under any obligation to do it.
Wondergirl
Jun 22, 2012, 09:31 AM
I'd ask that third neighbor why they didn't do it...no neighbor is OBLIGATED to do it free....the person whith the broken leg could pay a number of lawn services to do it...assuming they don't have a wife or kids that are each fully capible of doing it if they got up from in front of the TV.
A neighbor might do it if that other neighbor is friendly with them....but they aren't under any obligation to do it.
What if all the neighbors on the block decide to take turns mowing the guy's lawn (he's short on funds and is a bachelor). Would you, as a neighbor also on that block, take a turn?
smoothy
Jun 22, 2012, 09:41 AM
What if all the neighbors on the block decide to take turns mowing the guy's lawn (he's short on funds and is a bachelor). Would you, as a neighbor also on that block, take a turn?
Only if everyone does it voluntarily... again... they are under no obligation to do it... and if a few decide they won't... they are under no moral obligation to do it.
I've got a neighbor or two I'd do that for if they asked when they were on vacation... and I've got a one neighbor up the street I wouldn't stop to pee on if they were laying in the middle of the road on fire.
tomder55
Jun 22, 2012, 10:12 AM
Where is the virtue if charity is compelled ?
charity which is expected or compelled is simply a polite word for slavery(Terry Goodkind)
speechlesstx
Jun 22, 2012, 10:29 AM
What if all the neighbors on the block decide to take turns mowing the guy's lawn (he's short on funds and is a bachelor). Would you, as a neighbor also on that block, take a turn?
What is your point, or is there one?
speechlesstx
Jun 22, 2012, 02:06 PM
It's come to this (http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/OScreenShot.jpg)...
http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/OScreenShot.jpg
Yes that's right ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States wants you to forgo your wedding, birthday and anniversary gifts and give it to him instead. Words literally fail me.
TUT317
Jun 22, 2012, 04:16 PM
A while ago you said "this is not right" concerning my view of fairness. So now I'm kind of right?
I get that fairness is difficult to quantify, but as the quote by Brooks in my signature implies it should be quite obvious that "spreading money around by force" is "an odd definition of fairness." And that's my point.
It's an odd definition if we see things through Brooks' eyes. But it is not odd if we see things through the eyes of someone who believes that we should use force to spread money around.
For example, does fairness mean?
fairness=force or fairness=reasonable distribution. We can plug in as many definitions as we like on the right hand side of these equations, it will make no difference. Fairness will always be an open question.
Tut
paraclete
Jun 22, 2012, 04:18 PM
I. Fairness will always be an open question.
Tut
Fairness is when all parties get equal advantage
smearcase
Jun 22, 2012, 04:27 PM
Ex, As a retired highway engineer I have to comment on the equating help for the poor with providing roads.
Highways with maybe some rare exceptions are built and maintained with revenues from gas taxes. There are possibly more instances where those highway funds are diverted by some states for other uses like even to support social programs, and balancing budgets.
The trend in many areas is to build toll roads and expensive exclusive lanes for those who can afford them. It is becoming more a situation where the those who can afford it are paying for roads and/or express lanes that the poor can't use-especially during peak hours.
If it continues at the same rate as it has been in the states I drive in--the non-toll roads won't be fit
To drive on. In my state, 25% (about 5,000) bridges are structurally deficient. Folks must be OK with that, their representatives aren't doing anything about it--that is how it supposed to work, isn't it?
smoothy
Jun 22, 2012, 05:19 PM
fairness is when all parties get equal advantageSo... A smart person should be handicapped down to the level of a retard... would you want YOUR doctor to be a retard that was given free passes to give them the same advantage as the smart med school student?
Or the lazy person should get all the same benefits of a motivated person?
What about a dumb poor person living in a rural area... who's going to give them the same advantage of the smart well connected person in the right Urban area?
Fact is life isn't fair... everyone doesn't have the same opportunities for a number of reasons.. advantages or chances... many times because of choices they make like not studying in school, or dropping out of school.
Fair is having the chance to advance the best you can within the limits of your abilities... We have that in the USA, you have it in Canada and I'd like to believe Australia too. You don't in places like India and a number of other places...
paraclete
Jun 22, 2012, 06:17 PM
smoothy I didn't say my definition is perfect because this is an imperfect world. So you want to take the definition to the ridiculous but I happen to think that a system that allows an individual to amass great wealth whilst there are the disadvantaged, the homeless, the unemployed all around them and can say you can't ask me to contribute more is obscene and certainly unfair. You speak of India but the current indian prime minister understands fair, he instituted changes that have brought millions out of poverty. There are parts of my country where unfairness reigns despite our best efforts. This is because we have not reduced everyone to the lowest common denominator, that is not fairness, but have tried to elevate even those whose abilities might be lacking in some particular
So fairness is providing everyone with the opportunity to reach their potential and this means providing schools, health care, housing, food even if it means taking those recources from the rich that make it possible. This is not talking about free handouts but expecting everyone to contribute according to their means
smoothy
Jun 22, 2012, 06:42 PM
smoothy I didn't say my definition is perfect because this is an imperfect world. so you want to take the definition to the rediculous but I happen to think that a system that allows an individual to amass great wealth whilst there are the disadvantaged, the homeless, the unemployed all around them and can say you can't ask me to contribute more is obscene and certainly unfair. You speak of India but the current indian prime minister understands fair, he instituted changes that have brought millions out of poverty. there are parts of my country where unfairness reigns dispite our best efforts. This is because we have not reduced everyone to the lowest common denominator, that is not fairness, but have tried to elevate even those whose abilities might be lacking in some particular
So fairness is providing everyone with the opportunity to reach their potential and this means providing schools, health care, housing, food even if it means taking those recources from the rich that make it possible. this is not talking about free handouts but expecting everyone to contribute according to their meansI completely disagree on some of those points, many of them in fact... most of the homeless are that way not from bad luck... but from drug or alcohol abuse, mental illness, or just plain bad attitudes that preclude them from keeping a job. THose who have just had really bad luck are a minority... At least in this country it's the case...
Being told I have to pay more from what I worked so hard to earn is patently unfair because the lazy refuse to make any sacrifices over and over throughout their lives...
They are NOT entitled to the property the wealthy earned... that is nothing short of theft and strong-arm robbery.
Most of the successful made sacrifices... went into debt to further our educations... took our public school educations seriously while they didn't. Worked hard years and even decades taking the hard route to get ahead while they cruised through life doing as little as they could get away with... thus they are somehow entitled to take what those of us worked far harder to gain?
They can go straight to hell. They had the opportunities and never took them every chance they had. And I don't feel I'm entitled to anything from those who took even bigger risks and made more efforts than I have myself.
You are only entitled to what YOU earn yourself... not that PLUS a chunk of what someone else earned too.
When I mentioned India... though I did not say so explicitly I was meaning the Caste system... which is still very much alive and well... despite news of its death.. I got that FROM Indian immigrants I know.
Wondergirl
Jun 22, 2012, 06:48 PM
You are only entitled to what YOU earn yourself...not that PLUS a chunk of what someone else earned too.
So my bipolar uncle should not have been allowed public aid (Medicaid) after he ran through $250,000 of his own money, paying that out to two nursing homes over six years' time? Not every disadvantaged person is lazy. Some people are born disabled and disadvantaged. Do we throw them out onto the street?
smearcase
Jun 22, 2012, 07:17 PM
Somewhere in the range of 50 to 60% of patients in nursing homes are funded by Medicaid, most after they have been required to spend down their assets, and there are strict guidelines on giving away any assets for the five years prior to needing to be admitted to a nursing home.
Are we prepared to stepback to the pre-Medicare/Medicaid days of taking care of our elderly relatives in the parlor?
I don't know-I'm asking.
smoothy
Jun 22, 2012, 07:21 PM
So my bipolar uncle should not have been allowed public aid after he ran through $250,000 of his own money, paying that out to two nursing homes over six years' time? Not every disadvantaged person is lazy. Some people are born disabled and disadvantaged. Do we throw them out onto the street?
Not talking Public aid, except welfare (which should be one year and your out)... I'm talking the Jones with Masters Degrees in the big house down the street being raped and a chunk of their earnings being redistributed to the Thompson's down the street in the trailer park that never bothered to finish high school that work flipping Burgers at the Gag and Choke in the Industrial park.
Lazy is a personal choice... being born blind or without arms isn't. I see several severely handicapped people (yes it's that obvious with them) with electric wheelchairs going to work everyday, seem to work the same hours I do (yes the same ones too). Yet there are fat lazy people who expect to get a free ride on SSI because their legs hurt to walk... yeah at 350 lbs I'm not surprised... I see those every day too... I see people limping into the SSI office, experience a miracle because they are walking out quite spiritedly an hour or so later... crutches or cane unused under their arm, when they were using them to hobble in earlier like a cripple.
Yes I can see a SSI office from my office window across the street... and have for 18 years. It's a daily event... not once in a blue moon. It IS that frequent.
Wondergirl
Jun 22, 2012, 07:29 PM
For every fake SSI applicant you see, there are probably ten who are legit. So what is the solution? Better vetting? The same problem exists with handicap cards/hangers for parking. Chicago and suburbs are cracking down on those who are hale and hearty and who use Grandma's hanger.
smoothy
Jun 22, 2012, 07:34 PM
For every fake SSI applicant you see, there are probably ten who are legit. So what is the solution? Better vetting? The same problem exists with handicap cards/hangers for parking. Chicago and suburbs are cracking down on those who are hale and hearty and who use Grandma's hanger.
Yes... they should be vetted far more strictly... and cheats punished harshly.
Never said there wasn't legit ones... but you see LINES of people that are nowhere near retirement age waiting to get in every day of the week, many of them very overweight.. and its always the young ones I see doing this.
No wonder SSI is almost bankrupt... most of them never contributed a dime.
smoothy
Jun 22, 2012, 07:41 PM
Somewhere in the range of 50 to 60% of patients in nursing homes are funded by Medicaid, most after they have been required to spend down their assets, and there are strict guidelines on giving away any assets for the five years prior to needing to be admitted to a nursing home.
Are we prepared to stepback to the pre-Medicare/Medicaid days of taking care of our elderly relatives in the parlor?
I don't know-I'm asking.
Most people in nursing homes have worked their entire life and actually contributed into SSI.. for 40+ years.
I feel they earned it... those that didn't pay in most of their adult lives (the welfare bums... not the housewives or the truly severely handicapped)... didn't earn it..
However recent arrivals from foreign countries that are already old... should not be entitled to collect when they never contributed.
Wondergirl
Jun 22, 2012, 07:53 PM
However recent arrivals from foreign countries that are already old....should not be entitled to collect when they never contributed.
What do we then do with them when they need more help than their families can give?
smoothy
Jun 22, 2012, 08:08 PM
What do we then do with them when they need more help than their families can give?
Send them back to their home countries... I am not willing to give up MY benefits I've worked my entire life for so they can have a free ride... at least I paid for mine... SSI and Medicare is running out of money for those who actually paid into it... who's going to take care of MY needs when they pi55 away all the money on people that never earned their benefits?
I've been paying 32 years now and counting... I have more of a right to it then someone who never contributed does.
TUT317
Jun 22, 2012, 08:27 PM
So...A smart person should be handicapped down to the level of a retard....would you want YOUR doctor to be a retard that was given free passes to give them the same advantage as the smart med school student?
Or the lazy person should get all the same benefits of a motivated person?
What about a dumb poor person living in a rural area...who's going to give them the same advantage of the smart well connected person in the right Urban area?
Fact is life isn't fair....everyone doesn't have the same opportunities for a number of reasons..., advantages or chances....many times because of choices they make like not studying in school, or dropping out of school.
Fair is having the chance to advance the best you can within the limits of your abilities....We have that in the USA, you have it in Canada and I'd like to believe Australia too. You don't in places like India and a number of other places...
Hi Smoothy,
You fail to distinguish between advantage and opportunity. Fairness and difference only makes sense when we provide the opportunity for poor people to take advantage of situations that provide an opportunity provides for success. When it comes to education no one is arguing that qualifications should be scaled down in order that they can be qualified.
I remember you provided this example once before and I will answer it the same way. Show be a poor person who has medical qualifications that are of a substandard nature. In other words, they were allowed to sit for an easier exam.
More importantly, why keep equating poor with being dumb. I put this proposition to you in another post and you avoided it.
Tut
paraclete
Jun 22, 2012, 08:29 PM
Hey wondergirl they are no worse off than they were where they came from and if they are let them return. I agree smoothy that citizenship is an important prerequisite, economic migrants take their risks
TUT317
Jun 23, 2012, 02:07 AM
where is the virtue if charity is compelled ?
charity which is expected or compelled is simply a polite word for slavery(Terry Goodkind)
Hi Tom,
The problem is that virtue ethics and justice/fairness are both deontological theories. Basically, this just means the two theories are rule based ethics. In other words, the individual has a certain a feeling that he/she has a self-imposed duty to try and make a difference. The important point of course is that it cannot be compelled.
Justice and fairness principles also occupy the same ground, so to speak. The big difference here is that society, not the individual is duty bound to try and make a difference. I think this amounts to a rejection of consequentialist theories that try to account for fairness. I haven't read Rawl's book A Theory of Justice, but I think this is what he is getting at. If this is the case then it would seem that Terry Goodkind doesn't understand that it is possible to have two competing theories occupying the same moral ground. Both being equally applicable.
Tut
tomder55
Jun 23, 2012, 02:44 AM
Do you really want me to give my cynical definitions of "fairness" again ? It goes back to that negative and positive rights debate. As you know ,I'm a negative rights kind of person. I'll go so far as to say that positive rights are used as control and suppression of the individual by the big state in the name of liberty . But liberty and fairness cannot occupy the same plane... at least not in the way the progressives define it.
paraclete
Jun 23, 2012, 02:49 AM
And obviously not as you define it
TUT317
Jun 23, 2012, 03:19 AM
Do you really want me to give my cynical definitions of "fairness" again ? It goes back to that negative and positive rights debate. As you know ,I'm a negative rights kinda person. I'll go so far as to say that positive rights are used as control and suppression of the individual by the big state in the name of liberty . But liberty and fairness cannot occupy the same plane....at least not in the way the progressives define it.
Well, I'd rather a logical discussion rather than a cynical one, or a logical cynical one.
As I said before, I haven't actually read the book although I have heard of his theory. If Rawls is saying what I think he is saying then I tend to reject his argument.
But one thing that is true on every account (including yours) is that society has many competing theories occupying the same plane. Your example of positive and negative liberty is a good one.
What some people fail to understand is that history is littered with one theory societies. One defining feature of these types of societies is that they are anti-democratic. To push one particular type of theory out of contention because it doesn't fit an ideology is to repeat the errors of the past.
Tut
tomder55
Jun 23, 2012, 03:28 AM
I'm content with having my theories tested so long as it is on a playing field defined by the Constitution. But I don't see it a "fair " playing field when fairness is imposed by executive decree (as the President has done repeatedly ) ,or by judicial usurpation .
TUT317
Jun 23, 2012, 03:41 AM
I'm content with having my theories tested so long as it is on a playing field defined by the Constitution. But I don't see it a "fair " playing field when fairness is imposed by executive decree (as the President has done repeatedly ) ,or by judicial usurpation .
Hi Tom,
Well, I have no answer to than problem. I don't think anyone has.
Tom, the people you call, 'progressives' are people that I don't recognize as being progressive at all. It is not a sort of progressiveness that I am familiar with. A bit cynical I know.
Tut
speechlesstx
Jun 23, 2012, 04:50 AM
It's an odd definition if we see things through Brooks' eyes. But it is not odd if we see things through the eyes of someone who believes that we should use force to spread money around.
For example, does fairness mean?
fairness=force or fairness=reasonable distribution. We can plug in as many definitions as we like on the right hand side of these equations, it will make no difference. Fairness will always be an open question.
Tut
Sorry Tut but I believe fairness in most cases is pretty straightforward.
smoothy
Jun 23, 2012, 06:07 AM
Hi Smoothy,
You fail to distinguish between advantage and opportunity. Fairness and difference only makes sense when we provide the opportunity for poor people to take advantage of situations that provide an opportunity provides for success. When it comes to education no one is arguing that qualifications should be scaled down in order that they can be qualified.
I remember you provided this example once before and I will answer it the same way. Show be a poor person who has medical qualifications that are of a substandard nature. In other words, they were allowed to sit for an easier exam.
More importantly, why keep equating poor with being dumb. I put this proposition to you in another post and you avoided it.
Tut
Doesn't matter... a poor person isn't entitled to anything a rich person has... period.
Most poor people ARE that way because they ARE dumb...
Is not taking full advantage of your education opportunities growing up dumb? Yes it is.
Is skipping school and/or hanging out with hoodlums all night rather than study dumb? Yes it is.
Is taking the easy way out rather than working harder to get ahead dumb? Yes it is.
Is not getting an education beyond high school dumb? Even though its free in some countries, and even if you have to pay? Yes it is.
Is it dumb and unwarranted for someone who did any or all the above to them expect someone what actually work hard to get ahead to give then what they worked hard to earn? Yes it is.
They ALL had that opportunity... and refused to take advantage of it...
WE don't live in societies that don't provide educations... and most wealthy people didn't attend private schools... the poor had the very same opportunity to get that same education, which is fundamental to everything else. They went to the same schools, sat in the same classes, had the same teachers and the same schoolbooks,. That makes it their fault... nobody else's.
paraclete
Jun 23, 2012, 07:07 AM
Yes we know taxation is theft but then we don't need elected politicians either just the rule of the gun and the mob
NeedKarma
Jun 23, 2012, 07:11 AM
Most poor people ARE that way because they ARE dumb...I feel the same way about fat people.
excon
Jun 23, 2012, 07:16 AM
they ALL had that opportunity....and refused to take advantage of it...Hello smoothy:
Nahhh... It's right wing tripe.
The fact IS, the people who you SAY have "ALL that opportunity", were BORN with two strikes against them. Nonetheless, a FEW people escape it - but VERY few.
excon
paraclete
Jun 23, 2012, 03:34 PM
I feel the same way about fat people.
Yeah and I feel the same way about athiests
NeedKarma
Jun 23, 2012, 04:27 PM
yeh and I feel the same way about athiests
Sorry about your fatness. :-) I bet the satire went right over smoothy's head though.
paraclete
Jun 23, 2012, 07:33 PM
I'm not sorry since I have a right to exist and in any case fat is four hundred pounds of hamburger and fried chicken
TUT317
Jun 24, 2012, 02:14 AM
Doesn't matter....a poor person isn't entitled to anything a rich person has....period.
Most poor people ARE that way because they ARE dumb...
is not taking full advantage of your education opportunities growing up dumb? Yes it is.
is skipping school and/or hanging out with hoodlums all night rather than study dumb? Yes it is.
is taking the easy way out rather than working harder to get ahead dumb? Yes it is.
is not getting an education beyond high school dumb? Even though its free in some countries, and even if you have to pay? Yes it is.
Is it dumb and unwarranted for someone who did any or all the above to them expect someone what actually work hard to get ahead to give then what they worked hard to earn? Yes it is.
they ALL had that opportunity....and refused to take advantage of it...
WE don't live in societies that don't provide educations.....and most wealthy people didn't attend private schools....the poor had the very same opportunity to get that same education, which is fundamental to everything else. they went to the same schools, sat in the same classes, had the same teachers and the same schoolbooks,...That makes it their fault....nobody else's.
What doesn't matter?
It matters because you again post the same dumb down doctor qualification scenario as evidence for you position.
You don't don't understand my posts, nor understand the issues I have raised.
It matters because you don't provide any type of argument to defend you position other than , "yes it is" and "period". Perhaps you could add the proviso, "because I said so".
Tut
paraclete
Jun 24, 2012, 03:22 AM
What doesn't matter?
It matters because you again post the same dumb down doctor qualification scenario as evidence for you position.
You don't don't understand my posts, nor understand the issues I have raised.
It matters because you don't provide any type of argument to defend you position other than , "yes it is" and "period". Perhaps you could add the proviso, "because I said so".
Tut
Now Tut don't get cranky with these dullards, recognise that this is the problem the americans have. The place is being run by people without imagination. Too many german and polish migrants. Terrible thing to say I know but these people have no imagination just a rule book
smearcase
Jun 24, 2012, 09:01 AM
All those WW II vets who saved your a88es a few years back by leaving school to go fight-were they dumb enough for you?
paraclete
Jun 24, 2012, 04:19 PM
They didn't fight for me they fought for themselves, not because my country was threatened but because theirs was attacked, our troops were busy fighting Hitler while they sat on the side lines in a will I won't I loop, I expect politics was just as dumb then
tomder55
Jun 25, 2012, 06:06 PM
Thomas Sowell takes on this question of what "fair " means .
Since this is an election year, we can expect to hear a lot of words and the meaning of those words is not always clear. So it may be helpful to have a glossary of political terms.
One of the most versatile terms in the political vocabulary is "fairness." It has been used over a vast range of issues, from "fair trade" laws to the Fair Labor Standards Act. And recently we have heard that the rich don't pay their "fair share" of taxes.
Some of us may want to see a definition of what is "fair." But a concrete definition would destroy the versatility of the word, which is what makes it so useful politically.
If you said, for example, that 46.7% or any other number is the "fair share" of their income that the rich should have to pay in taxes, then once they paid that amount, there would be no basis for politicians to come back to them for more and "more" is what "fair share" means in practice.
Life in general has never been even close to fair, so the pretense that the government can make it fair is a valuable and inexhaustible asset to politicians who want to expand government.
"Racism" is another term we can expect to hear a lot this election year, especially if the public opinion polls are going against President Barack Obama.
Former big-time TV journalist Sam Donaldson and current fledgling CNN host Don Lemon have already proclaimed racism to be the reason for criticisms of Obama, and we can expect more and more talking heads to say the same thing as the election campaign goes on.
The word "racism" is like ketchup. It can be put on practically anything and demanding evidence makes you a "racist."
A more positive term that is likely to be heard a lot, during election years especially, is "compassion." But what does it mean concretely? More often than not, in practice it means a willingness to spend the taxpayers' money in ways that will increase the spender's chances of getting reelected.
If you are skeptical or, worse yet, critical of this practice, then you qualify for a different political label: "mean-spirited." A related political label is "greedy."
In the political language of today, people who want to keep what they have earned are said to be "greedy," while those who wish to take their earnings from them and give them to others (who will vote for them in return) show "compassion."
A political term that had me baffled for a long time was "the hungry." Since we all get hungry, it was not obvious to me how you single out some particular segment of the population to refer to as "the hungry."
Eventually, over the years, it finally dawned on me what the distinction was. People who make no provision to feed themselves, but expect others to provide food for them, are those whom politicians and the media refer to as "the hungry."
Those who meet this definition may have money for alcohol, drugs or even various electronic devices. And many of them are overweight. But, if they look to voluntary donations, or money taken from the taxpayers, to provide them with something to eat, then they are "the hungry."
I can remember a time, long ago, when I was hungry in the old-fashioned sense. I was a young fellow out of work, couldn't find work, fell behind in my room rent and, when I finally found a job, I had to walk miles to get there, because I couldn't afford both subway fare and food.
But this was back in those "earlier and simpler times" we hear about. I was so naοve that I thought it was up to me to go find a job, and to save some money when I did. Even though I knew that Joe DiMaggio was making $100,000 a year a staggering sum in the money of that time it never occurred to me that it was up to him to see that I got fed.
So, even though I was hungry, I never qualified for the political definition of "the hungry." Moreover, I never thereafter spent all the money I made, whether that was a little or a lot, because being hungry back then was a lot worse than being one of "the hungry" today.
As a result, I was never of any use to politicians looking for dependents who would vote for them. Nor have I ever had much use for such politicians.
The Concrete Definition Of Fairness Would Destroy Its Use As A Political Term - Investors.com (http://news.investors.com/article/616015/201206251734/what-fairness-compassion-racism-greed-really-mean.htm)
paraclete
Jun 25, 2012, 06:26 PM
Tom fair is what someone decides it is from time to time. I expect the administration would be delighted if the rich were paying 46% of their income in tax. Fairness can only be assessed by what they get in return as opposed to what any other group pay and get.
Fairness must also be assessed by other criteria, it is not enough to say I pay a higher percentage than you, this is unfair, Particularly if I have considerable disposable income left over and you do not. Fairness is not equality in rate but equality in spending power or disposable income. When you can afford to buy the same yacht or car as I can we have established fairness
smoothy
Jun 25, 2012, 06:37 PM
I'd be delighted if the 47% that pay no federal taxes now paid what I have to pay in percentage... and I barely qualify in my geographic area as middle class, much less rich. Though in certain regions they might wrongfully call be filthy rich... if it was possible to use a Star Trek transporter to move my property at its current value along with my job to some backwater town.
paraclete
Jun 25, 2012, 06:52 PM
I'd be delighted if the 47% that pay no federal taxes now paid what I have to pay in percentage....and I barely qualify in my geographic area as middle class, much less rich. Though in certain regions they might wrongfully call be filthy rich....if it was possible to use a Star Trek transporter to move my property at its current value along with my job to some backwater town.
Smoothy what you do is sell your expensive town property and move to the back woods where no doubt you could acquire a similar property for a lower price of course there are other considerations such as loss of amenity.
If 47% pay no federal tax there are two possible reasons; they have low income or the taxation system has been deliberately skewed to lower their tax. If the second then that might need some tweaking if you have courageous politicians. To redress these inequities it is better to tax consumption rather than income, then the rich person who spends up will pay tax and the poorer person will also pay tax. Inequities can be redressed by not taxing basic foodstuffs. This doesn't deal with the black economy but it goes a long way towards collecting tax from avoiders. We have found it very efficient to tax gambling, tobacco, alcohol, petroleum as well as general consumption, it is truly a growth tax and largely painless
tomder55
Jun 25, 2012, 06:56 PM
No problem at all with a sales tax replacing the income tax . It won' t be me complaining ;but the pick pocket left will howl at the moon.
smoothy
Jun 25, 2012, 07:06 PM
Smoothy what you do is sell your expensive town property and move to the back woods where no doubt you could acquire a similar property for a lower price of course there are other considerations such as loss of amenity.
If 47% pay no federal tax there are two possible reasons; they have low income or the taxation system has been deliberately skewed to lower their tax. If the second then that might need some tweaking if you have courageous politicians. To redress these inequities it is better to tax consumption rather than income, then the rich person who spends up will pay tax and the poorer person will also pay tax. Inequities can be redressed by not taxing basic foodstuffs. This doesn't deal with the black economy but it goes a long way towards collecting tax from avoiders. We have found it very efficient to tax gambling, tobacco, alcohol, petroleum as well as general consumption, it is truely a growth tax and largely painless
They pay no federal tax because the Democrats gave them prime tax breaks and write offs that in some cases EXCEED their tax liabilities... which means they get money back that was never paid to in begin with. And that was done expressedly to buy votes.
I don't believe there should be any extra breaks for the lazy segment... then the SLACKER mindset will fade away and doing as little as possible to slide trough life with as little effort as possible won't be a lifestyle of choice.
Everyone pays the same percentage... which in real math... not new math... the more you make the more you pay... because 25% of $25,000 is less than 25% of $250,000, or 25% of $250,000,000.
And make Welfare a 1 year and you are out... with a 2 year lifetime maximum collection. Plenty of time for the lazy to get work... and provides a minimal safety net for those who truly need it.
excon
Jun 25, 2012, 07:26 PM
I'd be delighted if the 47% that pay no federal taxes now paid what I have to pay in percentage...Hello again, smoothy:
You've been told on many different occasions that the people you mention above DO pay federal taxes... They just don't pay federal income taxes.. That's because they're poor. But, they DO pay federal payroll taxes.. They pay federal gasoline taxes.. They pay federal excise taxes... They pay federal telephone taxes... And, I'm sure I've left off a couple of other federal taxes they pay...
I don't expect you'll change your tune.. But, this post is just a reminder that I'm not going to change mine either.
excon
paraclete
Jun 25, 2012, 07:34 PM
They pay no federal tax because the Democrats gave them prime tax breaks and write offs that in some cases EXCEED their tax liabilities....which means they get money back that was never paid to in begin with. And that was done expressedly to buy votes.
I don't believe there should be any extra breaks for the lazy segment....then the SLACKER mindset will fade away and doing as little as possible to slide trough life with as little effort as possible won't be a lifestyle of choice.
Everyone pays the same percentage....which in real math....not new math...the more you make the more you pay....because 25% of $25,000 is less than 25% of $250,000, or 25% of $250,000,000.
And make Welfare a 1 year and you are out...with a 2 year lifetime maximum collection. Plenty of time for the lazy to get work....and provides a minimal safety net for those who truly need it.
Smoothy I have great difficulty with your thinking. Some people might be out of work because they are lazy, but many are out of work because there is no work and it will take some time for that position to change. You have to take skills into account and many have little marketable skill
The difficulty with the thinking that everyone pays the same percentage is that it disadvantages the poor. In your equation the poor are left with 18750, the middle 187500 and the rich with 1875000 surely you can see that one is below the poverty line and seriously disadvantaged by this approach while the rich person is largely unaffected. The rich are greater consumers of societies services than the poor and derive greater benefit from it, they also have the ability to modify their income and avoid tax however if you implemented this and did away with all deductions and subsidies how long do you think before the system would again be corrupted
You have to have welfare to work programs where long term unemployed have to do more than collect benefits, just cutting off the benefit isn't an answer, but such programs should not hamper the ability to look for work. The person you call lazy may be suffering depression and lack the resources to get help. You also need to take into account that society is changing there is a great deal more part time work than there used to be. This doen't lift people out of poverty
smoothy
Jun 25, 2012, 07:41 PM
Hello again, smoothy:
You've been told on many different occasions that the people you mention above DO pay federal taxes... They just don't pay federal income taxes.. That's because they're poor. But, they DO pay federal payroll taxes.. They pay federal gasoline taxes.. They pay federal excise taxes... They pay federal telephone taxes... And, I'm sure I've left off a couple of other federal taxes they pay...
I don't expect you'll change your tune.. But, this post is just a reminder that I'm not gonna change mine either.
excon
We all know Federal income tax IS a Federal tax, and the one we Always refer to when saying this... and that 47% get everything that is deducted back OR MORE on their tax returns. Leaving the other 53% having to foot 100% of the bill. And we the 53% fund 100% of the federal handouts that benefit people that contribute nothing towards them.
If 100% of the adult population paid taxes... and didn't get them back... they would have skin in the game and the freebies would not be so attractive to them.
speechlesstx
Jun 26, 2012, 02:13 PM
Back to the OP, Hope & change, the Obama campaign seems to have finally settled on a campaign theme. Not "Forward" or "do over" but "Rerun." Yes, his campaign seems to have returned to "change (http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/the-president-campaigns-against-washington)."
That all fits in with his style, leading from behind, bottom up economics, reruns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIL5xmSYj1o&feature=player_embedded).
The new bumper sticker? I made it for 'em myself...